Opinion
A148138
08-22-2018
JULIE CORONA et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. YUNG K. SO et al., Defendants and Appellants.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG14743334) THE COURT:
Before Jones, P.J., Needham, J., and Bruiniers, J.
Tenants Francisco Martin, Marisela Munoz, and their two adult children, Julie Corona and Marisela Renee Munoz (Respondents) occupied a unit in a six-unit building located at 21400 Mission Boulevard in Hayward (the Property). They sued their landlords, Yung K. So and Sung J. So (Appellants) alleging, inter alia, claims for breach of warranty of habitability, negligence, nuisance, violations of the Civil Code, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Appellants filed an answer and a cross-complaint claiming breach of the rental agreement. Following a bench trial, the court (Hon. Kimberly E. Colwell) found in Respondents' favor on both the complaint and cross-complaint and awarded them damages. Appellants challenge the trial court's rulings on admission and exclusion of evidence, as well as the judgment entered for Respondents on the complaint and cross-complaint. We affirm.
The answer and cross-complaint are not included in the clerks' transcript and do not appear to have been requested.
We first observe that Appellants' briefing is deficient in almost every respect. Appellants' brief contains no separate headings addressing any points of argument. California Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(A) requires each brief to "[s]tate each point under a separate heading or subheading summarizing the point." "This is not a mere technical requirement; it is 'designed to lighten the labors of the appellate tribunals by requiring the litigants to present their cause systematically and so arranged that those upon whom the duty devolves of ascertaining the rule of law to apply may be advised, as they read, of the exact question under consideration, instead of being compelled to extricate it from the mass.' " (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408.)
Appellants attach "Exhibits" to their opening brief. Appellants make no attempt to tie them to any portion of the trial court record, and it is impossible to tell which, if any, were submitted at trial. We ignore them.
Appellants provide record citations to roughly 12 of 642 pages of reporter's transcript covering three days of trial, and they ignore entirely the trial judge's final statement of decision, which contains a very thorough evaluation of the evidence presented and makes detailed findings of fact. An appellant must not only identify each order he asserts is erroneous, with citation to the particular portion of the record wherein that ruling is contained, but he must also identify what legal authorities show error with respect to the challenged ruling. (County of Orange v. Smith (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1434, 1443-1444; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C).)
Among other things, the court found the evidence established a host of habitability defects, including cockroach and rat infestations; a lack of hot water (or any water) for extended periods; plumbing and electrical issues; lack of heat; and no appropriate and working bathroom facilities. The court further found Appellants had engaged in outrageous and extreme conduct in retaliation for Respondents' complaints, justifying and award of damages of $10,000 to each for emotional distress.
Appellants allege the court refused to consider certain testimony offered by the defense. We review trial court evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. (Twenty-Nine Palms Enterprises Corp. v. Bardos (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1447.) An " 'exercise of discretion in admitting or excluding evidence . . . will not be disturbed except on a showing the trial court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice . . . .' " (San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1419.) Appellants' few cited legal authorities generally reference the definition of abuse of discretion, but they make no effort to show how the trial court abused its discretion, other than to assert general disagreement with the court's conclusions.
We also note that the single authority mentioned in the table of authorities appears nowhere in the brief.
Appellants establish no abuse of discretion. They first fail to show by record reference that the court actually made the rulings they complain of. Transcript pages cited by Appellants refer to the testimony of witnesses (Emilio Herrera and Todd Lindberg), but contain no adverse evidentiary rulings or limitations on the witnesses' testimony. They erroneously claim the trial court refused to admit Yung So's testimony about a planned remodel of the Property. The transcript citation shows exactly the opposite. Appellants also cite a statement by the court, after the close of evidence, that the majority of the defense case was "inadmissible hearsay." The record reference, however, appears to be in connection with their contention that the court was not "impartial." The court did not, in any event, strike or expressly disregard any of the evidence presented. Appellants also fail to present any reasoned argument on the issue. "When an appellant fails to raise a point, or asserts it but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citations to authority, we treat the point as waived." (Badie v. Bank of America (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 779, 784-785.) Further, an erroneous evidentiary ruling requires reversal only if "there is a reasonable probability that a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been reached in the absence of the error." (Robertson v. Fleetwood Travel Trailers of California, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 785, 815; Evid. Code, § 354.) We find no such probability in light of the evidence detailed in the court's final statement of decision.
The court specifically considered the testimony of those witnesses and found it unconvincing. The court's final statement of decision rejects Appellants' evidence as not credible in several instances.
In a single sentence, Appellants also argue the proceedings were "tainted" due to the fact "appellant was not sworn in" until after testimony. Appellants confirmed the veracity of their testimony on the record and fail to show they made any objection to failure to earlier administer the oath. When no objection is made to unsworn testimony during a hearing, the right to require sworn testimony is waived. (Todd v. City of Visalia (1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 679, 690-691.) They also fail to present any discussion of the issue, or any argument as to how they might have been prejudiced.
Appellants appear, at least obliquely, to challenge the sufficiency of evidence to support the judgment, asserting the trial judge "misinterpreted the facts of the case" and the "preponderance of the evidence" favors their position. A party who challenges sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding must set forth, discuss, and analyze all evidence on that point, both favorable and unfavorable. (Schmidlin v. City of Palo Alto (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 728, 737-738.) " ' "Unless this is done the error is deemed waived." ' " (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246.) To the extent Appellants challenge the adverse judgment on their cross-complaint, they are required to show the evidence compels a finding in their favor as a matter of law. (Roesch v. De Mota (1944) 24 Cal.2d 563, 570-571; Shaw v. County of Santa Cruz (2008) 170 Cal.App.4th 229, 279.) They make no attempt to do so.
Finally, and most significantly, Appellants fail to recognize that " '[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.) Appellants have the burden of demonstrating error on the part of the trial court. (People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal.4th 644, 666 [" ' "error must be affirmatively shown" ' "]; Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1140-1141.) Appellants fail to meet that burden. The judgment is therefore AFFIRMED, and Respondents shall recover their costs on appeal.