Filed 12/5/18 Marriage of Asefirad & Rakhshandeh CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

Negar Rakhshandeh (wife) appeals from a court order compelling her to pay attorney fees totaling $5,000 to Esmaeil Asefirad (husband) and a second court order compelling her to pay $305 each month to husband as pendente lite spousal support. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

The order from which wife appeals, was issued following a contested hearing in the trial court, at which both parties were sworn in and provided testimony. The appellate record, however, does not include a reporter’s transcript from that hearing and the minute order reflects no court reporter was present. Therefore, we treat this as an appeal on the judgment roll. (Allen v. Toten (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1079, 1082-1083; Krueger v. Bank of America (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 204, 207.)

The limited record we have establishes that in April 2017, husband moved the court to order wife to pay him $1,500 per month in pendente lite spousal support. Husband also moved the court to order wife to pay to him $15,000 in attorney fees. Wife opposed the motion.

On May 24, 2017, the court ordered “$5,000.00 in attorney fees from the remaining fund from the parties bank accounts subject to reclassification at a later date.” The court deferred the issues of spousal support and additional attorney fees to a further hearing on June 5, 2017.

The parties appeared before the court again on September 1, 2017. Both parties were sworn and testified. On September 6, 2017, the court issued a written decision. The court denied wife’s motion to reconsider the court’s prior order regarding attorney fees, finding there were no new facts presented and wife’s argument was the same as the argument she made in opposition to the original motion for fees. (Wife’s motion for reconsideration is not included in the appellate record.)

The court also found husband was not “living at the marital standard of living” and ordered wife to pay $305 each month to husband as spousal support. The court directed the parties to meet and confer if either party’s monthly income exceeded their reported amount and report back to the court for an appropriate modification of support.

Wife appeals from both the May 24, 2017 order for fees and the September 6, 2017 order for support.

DISCUSSION

On appeal, we must presume the trial court’s judgment is correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) Thus, we must adopt all inferences in favor of the judgment, unless the record expressly contradicts them. (See Brewer v. Simpson (1960) 53 Cal.2d 567, 583.)

It is the burden on the party challenging a judgment to provide an adequate record to assess claims of error. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1140-1141.) When an appeal is “on the judgment roll” (Allen v. Toten, supra, 172 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1082-1083), we must conclusively presume evidence was presented that is sufficient to support the court’s findings (Ehrler v. Ehrler (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 147, 154). Our review is limited to determining whether any error “appears on the face of the record.” (National Secretarial Service, Inc. v. Froehlich (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 510, 521; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.163.)

Wife asks this court to reverse the trial court’s orders. To reverse the court’s orders, the appellant must demonstrate the court abused its discretion. (In re Marriage of Huntington (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1513, 1521 [orders for spousal support are reviewed for abuse of discretion]; In re Marriage of Cheriton (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 269, 283 [orders for attorney fees are reviewed for abuse of discretion].) Absent a reporter’s transcript, however, we presume official duties have been performed. (Evid. Code, § 664.) This presumption applies to the actions of trial judges. (People v. Duran (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1448, 1461-1462, fn. 5; Olivia v. Suglio (1956) 139 Cal.App.2d 7, 9 [“If the invalidity does not appear on the face of the record, it will be presumed that what ought to have been done was not only done but rightly done”].)

Accordingly, we presume on this record the trial court properly exercised its discretion by correctly applying the law and giving due consideration to the evidence before it, including both the written submissions by the parties and the testimony given at the hearing. (See Olivia v. Suglio, supra, 139 Cal.App.2d at p. 9.) We further presume the evidence was sufficient to support the orders. (Ehrler v. Ehrler, supra, 126 Cal.App.3d at p. 154.)

DISPOSITION

The trial court’s orders are affirmed.

/s/
Blease, Acting P. J.

We concur:

/s/
Robie, J.

/s/
Butz, J.