Filed 3/18/22 Doran v. O’Connor-Rose CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Shasta)

----

This appeal arises from a soured romantic relationship between Michael Doran and Donna O’Connor-Rose, the mother of Doran’s child. The relationship ended in an unlawful detainer action evicting Doran from the home in which he and O’Connor-Rose lived and a domestic violence restraining order restraining Doran from being present at the home. Doran thereafter sued O’Connor-Rose for: (1) specific performance/breach of express contract; (2) constructive trust based on breach of express contract; (3) constructive trust based on breach of implied contract; (4) declaratory relief; (5) fraud and deceit; (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (7) negligent infliction of emotional distress; (8) partition; and (9) injunction. O’Connor-Rose, in return, filed a cross-complaint against Doran for: (1) trespass to land; (2) ejectment; (3) unjust enrichment; and (4) declaratory relief. This appeal concerns the judgment entered following the court trial on the foregoing complaint and cross-complaint.[1]

The trial court found Doran’s “claims are not credible and not supported by the facts and law,” detailing 21 specific findings. The trial court further declined to award any damages to O’Connor-Rose “save and except a declaration concerning the ownership of real property.” The trial court found “[b]oth parties effectively disproved their opponent’s claims, except insofar as the parties’ claims for Declaratory Relief.” In that regard, the trial court declared the title to a commercial lot be vested entirely with Doran and the title to a residence be vested entirely with O’Connor-Rose. The judgment further states: “As each side was successful in defeating substantial claims of the other, the Court finds neither party is deemed the prevailing party and each party is to bear their [sic] own costs and attorney fees associated with this litigation.”

Doran, an attorney representing himself in pro. per., appeals from the judgment. Doran lists the issues on appeal as follows: (1) “were [sic] the underying [sic] courts’ [sic] application of judicial estoppel proper and not a violation of due process”; (2) “whether the matter is derivative of the litigation over the contract/partnership of the parties to care for their child where the trial court finds the petitioner did not make a case for trespass and the appellant had possession relative to that contract/partnership such that then was not domestic violence for the appellant to exercise rights under that possession nor subject to eviction”; and (3) “whether the admissions and credibility of the respondent was properly assessed especially in light of her ongoing felony tax evasions and conspiracies over a 20 year period of over a million dollars.” (Bolding and capitalization omitted.) O’Connor-Rose did not file a respondent’s brief.

Our review on appeal is subject to various procedural and substantive rules and is limited to only those issues appropriately preserved for and presented on appeal. Indeed, “ ‘[a] judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct. All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown. This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’ ” (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) “It is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate the existence of reversible error.” (Del Real v. City of Riverside (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 761, 766.) “To demonstrate error, appellant must present meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and citations to facts in the record that support the claim of error. [Citations.] When a point is asserted without argument and authority for the proposition, ‘it is deemed to be without foundation and requires no discussion by the reviewing court.’ [Citations.] Hence, conclusory claims of error will fail.” (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408.) All of Doran’s arguments fail to meet the foregoing requirements to demonstrate error on appeal.

Under the first heading that “the [unlawful detainer] and [domestic violence] court’s application of judicial estoppel was abuse of discretion and due process and should have been enjoined as it lacked jurisdiction,” (capitalization omitted) the opening brief fails to provide record citations to support the factual assertions made. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246 [“ ‘f a party fails to support an argument with the necessary citations to the record, . . . the argument [will be] deemed to have been [forfeit]ed’ ”].) Doran further fails to provide reasoned argument and citations to legal authority for the positions taken. We may and do disregard unsupported assertions of error. ([i]In re A.C. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 661, 672-673.) We also fail to see how the first argument has any bearing on the correctness of the judgment at issue in this appeal. In the judgment at issue here, the trial court took judicial notice of the judgment in the prior unlawful detainer action and the order in the prior domestic violence restraining order action. The appeal in this case does not, however, concern the prior actions.

The second argument suffers from much of the same deficiencies as the first argument. The heading reads, “the matter is derivative of the litigation over the contract/partnership of the parties to care for their child where the court finds the appellant had possession relative to that partnership that then was not domestic violence for the appellant to exercise rights under that possession nor subject to eviction, which should have been enjoined.” (Bolding and capitalization omitted.) Doran again fails to provide record citations for factual assertions and provides no reasoned argument or citations to legal authorities for the positions taken. We again also fail to see how the argument presented has any bearing on the correctness of the judgment at issue in this appeal. We further decline to consider Doran’s statement that “[s]ince an injunction should have issued against the unlawful detainer the Appellant was the prevailing party and should have been awarded attorney fees.” “Failure to provide proper headings forfeits issues that may be discussed in the brief but are not clearly identified by a heading.” (Pizarro v. Reynoso (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 172, 179.)

The third argument fares no better than the first two arguments. Doran presents the issue as “whether the admissions and credibility of the respondent was properly assessed especially in light of her ongoing felony tax evasions and conspiracies over a 20 year period of over a million dollars.” (Bolding and capitalization omitted.) Although Doran provides a few citations to the record, most of the factual assertions are not supported by record citations. The argument is further not supported by any legal analysis with citations to legal authorities. To the extent Doran makes any lurking or tangential arguments unrelated to the question of O’Connor-Rose’s credibility, as provided in the heading, we decline to respond or analyze such arguments. (Pizarro v. Reynoso, supra, 10 Cal.App.5th at p. 179.)

Because Doran has failed to present any argument demonstrating error on appeal, we affirm the judgment.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Respondent is awarded her costs on appeal. (California Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1) & (2).)

/s/

Robie, Acting P. J.

We concur:

/s/

Hoch, J.

/s/

Krause, J.

[1] We dispense with a detailed recitation of the factual and procedural background because, as explained post, the opening brief fails to meet the requirements to demonstrate error on appeal.