Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. FL086124
ELIA, J.Over the past 10 years Herman Aster has unsuccessfully appealed five times from orders arising from the dissolution of his marriage to respondent Zdenka Aster. On this sixth occasion appellant seeks review of an order requiring him to pay amounts he owes Zdenka but has continued to refuse to pay. Once again he has presented no tenable basis for finding error, and so once again, we must affirm.
Background
The record before us is confined to a reporter's transcript of a hearing on an unspecified motion, the written order after the hearing, and appellant's notice of appeal and designation of the appellate record. At the outset of the hearing on October 6, 2010, the Honorable Margaret S. Johnson announced her goal of finding "an end to this continual litigation and appeals and whatever that have been going on now for more than 10 years." The court then reviewed the previous property division orders with input from respondent's counsel and appellant, who was representing himself. Respondent's counsel pointed out that appellant had continued to resist a transfer of Bristol Myers stock, and she noted that another stock awarded to respondent had not yet been transferred to her. Appellant questioned the authority of Judge Johnson to proceed.
In its November 17, 2010 order the superior court reviewed the lengthy history of the litigation and set forth its findings on the amounts still in dispute. In addition to various orders dividing the parties' property, there had been repeated sanctions and attorney fees imposed on appellant, which he continued to resist. Appellant's refusal to pay what he owed respondent under prior court orders had resulted in an accumulation of interest as well as principal; accordingly, as of the date of the order appellant owed respondent a total of $57,081.45, not including any amounts attributable to the October 6 hearing. The court reserved jurisdiction over issues relating to past and current attorney fees and costs.
Discussion
As noted, appellant has brought multiple challenges to superior court orders over the 10-year history of the litigation between him and Zdenka. All of those rulings have been upheld on appeal, and on the fourth occasion (H032641) appellant was ordered to pay sanctions for pursuing a frivolous appeal under California Rules of Court, rule 8.276(a). Clearly the present appeal demonstrates that the family court's recent effort to find an "ultimate resolution" to this protracted litigation was unsuccessful. Appellant is once again before us with no comprehensible argument to support his assertion of error. His brief does not even contain any discussion of issues he wishes us to consider. He states only that "[r]espondent's claims in the Order are unsubstantiated as can be seen in filed Reporter's Transcript, hearing October 6, 2010. Respondent's fraud in division is not addressed in the Order." Appellant then "begs the Court to consider all significant facts and set aside the Order."
Appellant should know by now that his bare protests, with no accompanying reasoning or citation of authority—indeed, without any substance whatsover-- are manifestly inadequate to show error on appeal. Although "[w]e are not required to search the record to ascertain whether it contains support for [appellant's] contentions" (Mansell v. Board of Administration (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 539, 545), we have indeed considered "all significant facts." Our review discloses Judge Johnson's meticulous delineation of all the amounts appellant had previously been ordered to pay as part of the division of the parties' property along with sanctions under Family Code section 271 and accumulated interest.
Having utterly failed to make any effort to explain why the court's calculations were inaccurate or unjust, appellant has demonstrated nothing but a tenacious pursuit of his underlying purpose: to deprive his former wife of property to which she is legally entitled. As we have explained to appellant before, the right of access to the courts does not encompass the unfettered right to file wholly meritless appeals in order to frustrate and delay the implementation of superior court orders. The imposition of appellate sanctions in appellant's fourth appeal obviously has not deterred appellant from his intransigence and abuse of the judicial process. Should appellant come before us in yet another frivolous attempt to defy court orders and thereby avoid fulfillment of his obligations toward respondent, we will not hesitate to consider imposition of appellate sanctions again.
Disposition
The order is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: RUSHING, P. J., PREMO, J.