Marriage of Hole

Filed 5/25/10 Marriage of Hole CA1/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

This appeal arises from a dissolution proceeding. We do not reach the merits because appellant Donald Hole has not supplied the court with a record on appeal and his opening brief violates the California Rules of Court in significant respects.

As best we can make out, appellant was sued for divorce by respondent Bernadette Marie Hole. The couple apparently owned residential property located in Tracy, which at some point became subject to a lis pendens filed by respondent. Because of this filing, appellant was unable to sell the property. The property went into foreclosure, and appellant filed for bankruptcy protection. Apparently, the trial court at some point entered a judgment against appellant in the dissolution proceeding for $100,000 based on an agreement under which respondent apparently relinquished her rights in the property. Appellant clearly thinks the judgment is wrong, but has not identified in any intelligible way his claims of error.

A judgment is presumed to be correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564; In re Marriage of Falcone (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 822.) The appellant has the burden of overcoming this presumption and therefore has the burden of demonstrating, first, that the trial court erred and, secondly, that any error was prejudicial. (Generale Bank Nederland v. Eyes of the Beholder Ltd. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1398.) An appellant can meet this burden only by providing an adequate record for appellate review. (Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295-1296; Gee v. American Realty & Construction, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1416.) Failure to supply an adequate record necessarily compels affirmance of the judgment. (Ibid.) In this case, appellant has not supplied the court with any recordno clerks transcript, reporters transcript or appendix has been filed. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.120, 8.121, 8.122, 8.124, 8.128, 8.130, 8.134 & 8.137.) At oral argument, appellant stated he had submitted a deposition transcript in support of his appeal. As the cited Rules of Court explain, a deposition transcript is not the equivalent of, nor may it substitute for, a record on appeal. Accordingly, appellant has not carried his burden of demonstrating error, let alone that any error was prejudicial. For this reason, alone, we must reject his appeal and affirm the judgment.

In addition, appellants brief on appeal violates the rules of court in several significant respects. Not only does the brief lack appropriate references to the record (which is nonexistent) in violation of California Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C), it also is largely unintelligible and fails to state points under separate headings with appropriate argument and legal support in violation of rule 8.204(a)(1)(B). These are not minor transgressions. Rather, they make it impossible for the court to understand the facts and procedural history of the dispute, the basis for the trial courts judgment and the legal bases for appellants claims of error. This is a further reason why we must reject the appeal and affirm the judgment.

Disposition

The judgment is affirmed and respondent awarded costs on appeal.

_________________________

Banke, J.

We concur:

_________________________

Marchiano, P. J.

_________________________

Margulies, J.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.

Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line Lawyers.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com