Opinion
2d Civ B311793
11-07-2022
In re Marriage of JENNIFER and CATHERINE CORA. v. CATHERINE CORA, Respondent; JENNIFER CORA, Respondent, CAT CORA HOLDINGS LLC et al., Appellants.
Law Office of Stephanie J. Finelli, Stephanie J. Finelli; Drury Pullen and Susanna V. Pullen for Respondent Jennifer Cora. No appearance for Respondent Catherine Cora. The Kruger Firm and Jackie Rose Kruger for Appellants Cat Cora Holdings LLC and Corlich Enterprises.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Superior Court County of Santa Barbara No. 15FL02036 Thomas P. Anderle, Judge
Law Office of Stephanie J. Finelli, Stephanie J. Finelli; Drury Pullen and Susanna V. Pullen for Respondent Jennifer Cora.
No appearance for Respondent Catherine Cora.
The Kruger Firm and Jackie Rose Kruger for Appellants Cat Cora Holdings LLC and Corlich Enterprises.
GILBERT, P. J.
The trial court appointed a receiver to collect child and spousal support owed by Catherine Cora. Business entities in which Catherine has an interest appealed an order giving the receiver power over them. They failed to provide an adequate record to support their appeal. We affirm.
FACTS
A detailed statement of facts is no longer necessary in this long running and meritless appealed case. Suffice it to say that when Catherine Cora and Jennifer Cora dissolved their marriage, the trial court ordered Catherine to pay $9,500 per month in spousal support and $8,118 per month in child support. Catherine has refused to pay the ordered support, claiming that the Covid-19 pandemic has had such a devastating effect on her businesses that she is unable to make payment. This contention has been based on the premise "take my word for it." The court has found on multiple occasions Catherine's claim not to be credible.
Original Proceedings to Appoint a Receiver
Faced with Catherine's intransigence, the trial court granted Jennifer's request to appoint a receiver in October 2020. We affirmed the order. (Cora v. Cora (Dec. 14, 2021, B308834) [nonpub. opn.].)
The original order appointing the receiver gave the receiver power over certain entities owned or controlled by Catherine, including Cat Cora Holdings LLC and Corlich Enterprises (the Cora entities). Catherine raised no objection in the trial court to the Cora entities being subject to the receivership. She raised the issue for the first time on appeal. We held the issue had been waived. (Cora v. Cora, supra, B308834.)
Instant Proceeding
It is clear the receiver made some motion relating to the Cora entities, and the trial court granted the motion. But the record discloses neither the motion nor the order. The Cora entities provide an appellant's appendix. But it ends with the original order appointing the receiver. It does not cover the instant proceeding under appeal at all. The Cora entities provide a reporter's transcript of the hearing on the motion, but it is of little help. We do not know what order the trial court granted.
DISCUSSION
California Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(c) provides that each brief must "[s]upport any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page number of the record where the matter appears." The statement of facts in the Cora entities' opening brief is entirely bereft of any citation to the record. This is no doubt because they failed to provide a record.
It is the appellant's burden to produce an adequate record on appeal. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1140-1141.) Where the record is silent, all intendments and presumptions are indulged to support the order. (Id. at p. 1140.) Where an appellant fails to produce an adequate record, the claim must be resolved against the appellant. (Id. at p. 1141.)
Here, among other matters, the Cora entities have failed to provide the receiver's moving papers, the responding papers, any motion the Cora entities may have made to intervene, the trial court's tentative decision adopted as permanent, and the order granting the receiver's motion. The Cora entities claim that they have been denied due process, but they have provided us with no record with which to review the process. We note, however, that the reporter's transcript reveals no request by the Cora entities for a continuance or for other remedial action in which any perceived deprivation of due process could be cured. The Cora entities' other contentions are equally unsupported by any record.
This is not the first frivolous appeal in this case. We trust it will be the last.
DISPOSITION
The judgment (order) is affirmed. Sanctions are imposed upon Jackie Rose Kruger, counsel for appellants, in the amount of $2,500, payable to respondent Jennifer Cora, within 30 days after the date the remittitur is issued. Upon issuance of the remittitur, the clerk of this court is ordered to forward a copy of this opinion to the State Bar. (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 6086.7, subd. (a)(3), 6068, subd. (o)(3).) Costs on appeal are awarded to respondent Jennifer Cora.
We concur: YEGAN, J., PERREN. J. [*]
[*] Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.