Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. D03-03418
NEEDHAM, J.
Dawn Renae Cooksey appeals from an order denying her motion to set aside a previous order terminating spousal support. She contends the trial court abused its discretion when it denied a motion for continuance by her counsel for the purpose of conducting discovery. She also suggests that the termination of spousal support was unsupported by the evidence. We affirm.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Appellant’s former husband, respondent John Wayne Cooksey, filed a motion to terminate spousal support. The court granted the motion on July 29, 2009, noting that appellant had not filed responsive papers or objected to the court’s tentative ruling.
On August 18, 2009, appellant filed a motion to modify spousal support. Although that motion is not contained in the record on appeal, it apparently sought a modification of the July 29 order and a reinstatement of support. The court held a hearing on November 19, 2009, at which counsel for appellant requested a continuance so he could conduct additional discovery. The court denied the motion for modification and issued a minute order stating: “Petitioner has provided no basis for modifying the Court’s order of July 29, 2009 terminating spousal support. She has addressed none of the substantive issues asserted by Respondent in the moving papers that led up to the July 29, 2009 order (and which have been repeated in his response to the current motion). In addition, it appears that Petitioner has not been forthcoming about either her current income or her earning capacity.” Appellant appealed from this order.
The notice of appeal was filed on February 1, 2010. Appellant’s counsel filed a declaration in the superior court stating that the notice should be deemed timely under California Rules of Court, rule 8.66 due to an emergency created by his mother’s illness and death. Rule 8.66 provides for extensions of time due to public emergencies such as earthquakes or fire, and does not apply to personal crises such as the death of a family member. In any event, the notice of appeal was timely as to the November 19, 2009 order because it was filed within 180 days of that order and no properly titled “Notice of Entry of Judgment” was ever served on appellant or her counsel. (See Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 8.104(a)(1) –(4); Eisenberg et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Appeals and Writs (The Rutter Group 1997) ¶ 3.32, p. 3-14 (rev. # 1, 2009).)
II. DISCUSSION
Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by denying her request for a continuance and by issuing an order to terminate support that was not based upon adequate evidence. She offers no cogent legal argument as to why the trial court erred, other than to state that she was prejudiced and to cite the apparently inapposite Family Code section 4338, which describes the order in which different types of property may be used to enforce a support order.
“ ‘[A]n appealed judgment is presumed correct, and appellant bears the burden of overcoming the presumption of correctness.’ [Citation.] As a result, on appeal ‘the party asserting trial court error may not... rest on the bare assertion of error but must present argument and legal authority on each point raised. [Citation.]’ [Citation.] When an appellant raises an issue ‘but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citations to authority, we treat the point as waived. [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (Hearn v. Howard (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1207.) “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.” (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408.) Because appellant has utterly failed to make a cognizable claim of error on appeal, she has waived any challenge to the trial court’s orders.
Appellant has also failed to provide this court with a record sufficient for appellate review. Most notably, the clerk’s transcript does not include the moving papers filed in connection with the motion to terminate support that was granted on July 29, 2009 or the moving and responsive papers filed in connection with her motion to modify that order. It was appellant’s duty to produce an adequate record and her failure to do so precludes us from considering her claims. (See In re Valerie A. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 987, 1002.)
Finally, we note that appellant did not file a timely notice of appeal from the July 29, 2009 order terminating support. To the extent her claims challenge the substance of that order, they may not be raised in the current appeal. (Eisenberg, supra, § 3.119.1.)
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Because respondent did not file a brief in this matter, the parties shall bear their own costs.
We concur. SIMONS, Acting P. J., BRUINIERS, J.