Filed 4/11/18 Marriage of Farah CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO



In re the Marriage of MARY RANAE and DAVID LEE FARAH.

MARY RANAE FARAH,

Appellant,

v.

DAVID LEE FARAH,

Respondent.


E067373

(Super.Ct.No. HED1300438)

OPINION


APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Bradley O. Snell, Temporary Judge. Affirmed.
Mary Ranae Farah, in pro. per., for Appellant.
Margarete Brakhage for Respondent.
Appellant Mary Ranae Farah appeals the judgment dividing property and dissolving her marriage to respondent David Lee Farah. Mary contests the judgment, as well as various other orders issued by the trial court, and requests a new trial. Because the record on appeal does not demonstrate any error, we affirm.
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND AND FACTS
Mary and David were married on August 19, 1995, and separated on April 30, 2013. Mary filed for divorce on May 7, 2013. Trial was held on September 15 and December 1, 2015. The property issues were resolved on September 15, 2015, and permanent spousal support was resolved on December 1, 2015. On December 9, 2015, Mary filed an Order to Show Cause (OSC) for contempt. On April 18, 2016, the trial court found that David was not in contempt and dismissed the matter without prejudice.
On July 25, 2016, David filed a Request for Order Regarding Judgment of Dissolution. At the hearing on September 26, 2016, Mary requested a change of venue and a new trial. The trial court denied her requests and ordered David to “submit formal final judgment without [Mary’s] signature and without [her] filing her declaration of disclosures.” The judgment dissolving the marriage and dividing the property was filed on November 7, 2016.
II. DISCUSSION
Mary challenges the judgment, requesting a trial de novo on the grounds that there were several errors warranting a new trial. She asserts that the trial court was unable to “officially function with impartiality,” and David willfully breached his fiduciary responsibility and disregarded the court’s orders. Although Mary finds fault with the judgment, the majority of her challenges are to actions and orders taken and entered prior to the judgment.
“The most fundamental rule of appellate review is that a judgment is presumed correct, all intendments and presumptions are indulged in its favor, and ambiguities are resolved in favor of affirmance. [Citations.]” (City of Santa Maria v. Adam (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 266, 286.) “The appellant has the burden of furnishing an appellate court with a record sufficient to consider the issues on appeal. [Citation.] An appellate court’s review is limited to consideration of the matters contained in the appellate record. [Citation.]” (People v. Neilson (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1529, 1534.) In the absence of an adequate record to support the appellant’s claim of error, “we presume the judgment is correct.” (Stasz v. Eisenberg (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1032, 1039.) California Rules of Court, rule 8.120(b), provides that “[i]f an appellant intends to raise any issue that requires consideration of the oral proceedings in the superior court, the record on appeal must include a record of these oral proceedings . . . .” Most commonly, a reporter’s transcript serves as such a record, but the rule also provides for other options, such as an “agreed statement under rule 8.134,” or a “settled statement under rule 8.137.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.120(b).) The record that Mary designated fails to include the reporter’s transcript of any hearing or the trial. Additionally, the documents included in the record on appeal are limited to those that Mary filed with the court, omitting those filed by David. Mary has failed to furnish this court with a record sufficient to consider her issues on appeal.
Moreover, Mary’s briefs contain a significant amount of information without providing an intelligible argument to support her challenges. “Appellant’s burden also includes the obligation to present argument and legal authority on each point raised. This requires more than simply stating a bare assertion that the judgment, or part of it, is erroneous and leaving it to the appellate court to figure out why; it is not the appellate court’s role to construct theories or arguments that would undermine the judgment and defeat the presumption of correctness. [Citations.] [¶] When appellant asserts a point but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citations to authority, the court may treat it as waived and pass it without consideration. [Citations.]” (Eisenberg et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Appeals and Writs (The Rutter Group 2017) § 8:17.1, p. 8-6, original italics.) Because Mary’s briefs disregard the well-established principles of appellate review, we are forced to conclude that she has not shown any legal or factual reason to upset the trial court’s determination. (In re Marriage of Jovel (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 575, 587-590.)
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. There is no award of costs on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS


RAMIREZ
P. J.
We concur:

MCKINSTER
J.

FIELDS
J.