Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Monterey County Super. Ct. No. DR48496
McAdams, J.
This appeal arose out of a marital dissolution proceeding filed in 2009 by appellant Constance Anne Laub, who is also known as Constance Anne Dudley (Constance). Constance was previously married to respondent Paul Laub (Paul).
The trial court granted Paul’s motion to dismiss the 2009 proceeding, based on the parties’ prior dissolution judgment, which was entered in 1996. According to Constance, however, the 1996 judgment ceased to exist in 2007 because it was vacated by the court-ordered expungement of a recorded document that included the judgment.
As explained below, we shall treat Constance’s claims as forfeited based on her violations of the governing appellate rules, and, consequently, we shall affirm.
BACKGROUND
To frame Constance’s claims, and to provide context for our determination that those claims are forfeited, we begin with a brief background summary.
1996 Dissolution
In January 1996, Paul petitioned for dissolution of his marriage to Constance. In November 1996, Constance and Paul entered into a marital settlement agreement, which was merged into a dissolution judgment entered that same month.
The Lincoln Trust
In the marital settlement agreement, Paul and Constance agreed to establish an irrevocable trust, called the Lincoln Trust. The Lincoln Trust was created in February 1997, nominally for the benefit of the two children of the marriage. The trust property consists of a commercial building in Carmel. Constance claims a disputed life estate interest in the trust property.
Disputes concerning the trust and its management have given rise to at least four prior appellate proceedings brought by Constance: H032889, H031723, H032660, and H032472. At Constance’s request, we have taken judicial notice of our opinion in H031723, Constance’s appeal from the April 2007 probate order involving the trust.
In September 2006, the Lincoln Trust trustees brought two petitions for instruction, which the probate court granted in April 2007. Among other things, the court permitted the trust to borrow against the trust property. In an opinion filed in November 2008, this court affirmed the April 2007 order.
2007 Recordation and Expungement of Documents
In May 2007, Constance recorded a number of documents in Monterey County, including document #2007036846. That document bears the handwritten title “Judgment life Estate Constance Dudley Lincoln Property” on a cover sheet, followed by a copy of the 1996 dissolution judgment.
The trustees of the Lincoln Trust promptly moved to expunge the documents.
In May 2007, the trial court granted the trustees’ motion to expunge. In pertinent part, the court’s written order explains that “the improper recordation of these documents has created a cloud on the title to the real property of the Lincoln Trust and has interfered with and prevented the Lincoln Trustees from obtaining a loan in compliance with” the April 2007 probate court order.
Current Action
In March 2009, Constance filed the current action, in which she seeks dissolution of her marriage to Paul and other relief, including a determination of the parties’ property rights and an award of child and spousal support.
In April 2009, Paul moved to quash the petition based on the parties’ 1996 dissolution judgment. Constance opposed the motion, and Paul replied.
In June 2009, at the conclusion of the hearing on Paul’s motion, the court declared Constance’s dissolution petition “dismissed and set aside.” A formal order followed in July 2009. Meanwhile, Constance moved for reconsideration, which the court denied by minute order entered in August 2009 and by formal order entered in October 2009.
Appeal
In July 2009, Constance brought this appeal from the order of dismissal. Constance is representing herself on appeal.
The apparent premise of Constance’s appeal is “the simple fact of law that when a document is expunged under Civil Code § 3412 and ordered without force and effect, the instrument is vacated and regarded as to never have existed.” From that premise, Constance reasons that the 1996 dissolution judgment ceased to exist after the 2007 expungement order and that the trial court erred in relying on it in dismissing her 2009 dissolution proceeding. Constance offers no legal authority to support her argument, nor does she provide appropriate record citations, and the headings in her brief appear to address different issues altogether.
In his respondent’s brief, Paul contends (1) the expungement order did not vacate the prior dissolution judgment, (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the second dissolution action, and (3) Constance forfeited her claims by violation of the governing appellate rules.
DISCUSSION
Our analysis begins and ends with the question of whether Constance has forfeited her appellate claims as a result of rule violations. As explained below, we conclude that she has. That conclusion is dispositive of Constance’s appeal.
A. Legal Principles
“To demonstrate error, [the] 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; see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204 (a)(1)(B), (C).) That requirement applies with equal force to parties representing themselves. (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984; Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246.)
Among other things, all litigants are required to provide the reviewing court with pertinent legal arguments and appropriate references to the record. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204 (a)(1)(B), (C).) “One cannot simply say the court erred, and leave it up to the appellate court to figure out why.” (Niko v. Foreman (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 344, 368.)
A party challenging a judgment or order who fails to comply with the rules on appeal risks forfeiture of the claimed error. (See, e.g., Berger v. California Ins. Guarantee Assn. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 989, 1007.)
B. Application
In this case, Paul points to Constance’s “utter lack of compliance with California Rules of Court, Rule 8.204 regarding the form and content of appellate briefs.” He cites her failure to comply with requirements for record citations, headings, and legal argument.
As Paul also observes, these violations represent a continuing pattern on Constance’s part. In her last appeal, we noted Constance’s “disregard of the rules of appellate procedure.” (H032889, p. 15.) We nevertheless decided her appeal on the merits. But “our benevolence in disregarding such defects is wearing thin” at this point. (Lewis v. County of Sacramento (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 107, 113.)
Under these circumstances, we agree with Paul that we may reasonably “conclude that Constance’s continuing failure to comply with appellate rules is both intentional and contemptuous, justifying a finding that Constance has forfeited her arguments on appeal.” Based on her history in this court, our patience with Constance’s rule violations is now exhausted. (See Lewis v. County of Sacramento, supra, 93 Cal.App.4th at p. 113.) In any event, even without regard to her prior appellate conduct, Constance’s rule violations in this case warrant a finding of forfeiture, as we now explain.
1. Failure to provide record citations
The governing rule requires every appellate brief to “[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.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C).) Counsel and self-represented litigants have a “duty to point out portions of the record that support the position taken on appeal.” (Del Real v. City of Riverside (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 761, 768; accord, Kinney v. Overton (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 482, 497.) That duty includes providing the exact page citations. (Grant-Burton v. Covenant Care, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1361, 1379; Spangle v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 560, 564, fn. 3.) Litigants “should be vigilant in providing us with effective assistance in ferreting out all of the operative facts that affect the resolution of issues tendered on appeal.” (Lewis v. County of Sacramento, supra, 93 Cal.App.4th at p. 113; accord, Western Aggregates, Inc. v. County of Yuba (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 278, 291.) “We are a busy court which ‘cannot be expected to search through a voluminous record to discover evidence on a point raised by [a party] when his brief makes no reference to the pages where the evidence on the point can be found in the record.’ ” (Lewis v. County of Sacramento, at p. 113.) “It is neither practical nor appropriate for us to comb the record on [a party’s] behalf.” (In re Marriage of Fink (1979) 25 Cal.3d 877, 888.) When a party fails to support a point with appropriate record citations, the point may be deemed forfeited. (Ibid.; Del Real v. City of Riverside, at p. 768; Kinney v. Overton, at p. 497; City of Lincoln v. Barringer (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1211, 1239.)
Constance refers to the record in only four places in her brief, and those references do not include volume and page numbers. Constance thus “fails to provide any record references as required by California Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C).” (Dominguez v. American Suzuki Motor Corp. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 53, 55, fn. 2.)
2. Failure to provide appropriate headings and legal argument
The governing rule requires that each point must be stated “under a separate heading or subheading summarizing the point, ” and that it must be supported “by argument and, if possible, by citation of authority” on the point. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B).) “The purpose of requiring headings and coherent arguments in appellate briefs is ‘to lighten the labors of the appellate [courts] 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.’ ” (Opdyk v. California Horse Racing Bd. (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1826, 1830, fn. 4; see also, In re S.C., supra, 138 Cal.App.4th at p. 408.)
a. Headings
Constance’s opening brief consists of 172 numbered paragraphs under these seven headings: “I. INTRODUCTION; II. ISSUE ON APPEAL; III. LEVEL PLAYING FIELD; IV. FRAUD UPON THE COURT AND VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA LAW AND STATUTE; V. BACKGROUND; VI. DISCREPANCIES BY THE COURT; VII. CONCLUSION.” Patently, none of those headings summarizes or even suggests the thrust of her central appellate contention, which is that the 2007 expungement order vacated the 1996 dissolution judgment. (Cf. In re S.C., supra, 138 Cal.App.4th at p. 408 [one heading subsumed “what appear to be five separate complaints that, because of the manner in which they are presented, are painful to read and difficult to understand”].)
Constance thus “fails to raise [her argument] under a proper heading. Accordingly, it is forfeited.” (In re Mark B. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 61, 67, fn. 2; see also, e.g., Western Aggregates, Inc. v. County of Yuba, supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at pp. 290-291; City of Lincoln v. Barringer, supra, 102 Cal.App.4th at p. 1228.)
b. Failure to provide legal argument and authority
As Paul aptly observes: “Although Constance’s opening brief contains citations to statute and case law, with few exceptions these citations are to decisions of either federal courts or the courts of other states, notably Illinois, which have no relevance or applicability to this appeal.” Moreover, we would add, Constance presents neither a coherent discussion of the law in relation to the facts nor any reasoned explanation of the asserted error. (See In re Marriage of Green (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 14, 25.) Constance thus has failed to provide the requisite “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., supra, 138 Cal.App.4th at p. 408.)
Constance’s failure to provide relevant legal argument and authority supports a finding of forfeiture. (See, e.g., Berger v. California Ins. Guarantee Assn., supra, 128 Cal.App.4th at p. 1007; Taylor v. Roseville Toyota, Inc. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 994, 1001, fn. 2.)
3. Other appellate rule violations
In addition to the foregoing defects, other rule violations warrant a finding of forfeiture, as we now explain.
The governing rule requires an appellant’s opening brief to both: “(B) State that the judgment appealed from is final, or explain why the order appealed from is appealable; and [¶] (C) Provide a summary of the significant facts limited to matters in the record.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(2)(B), (C).)
Constance has done neither. First, her brief contains no statement showing that the challenged order is appealable. Second, Constance has made no attempt to accurately and fairly summarize the evidence. (See Nwosu v. Uba, supra, 122 Cal.App.4th at p. 1246 [appellant’s purported factual summary was impermissibly one-sided].)
More broadly, Constance’s brief is “almost impenetrable.” (In re Marriage of Green, supra, 213 Cal.App.3d at p. 29.) It is not our function to sleuth out either the essence of Constance’s arguments or the basis for them. (Opdyk v. California Horse Racing Bd., supra, 34 Cal.App.4th at p. 1830, fn. 4 [court is not “obliged to speculate about which issues” parties are trying to raise on appeal].) Furthermore, “an unsupported appellate tirade” such as Constance’s “is more than just words on paper; it represents a real cost to the opposing party and to the state.” (Pierotti v. Torian (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 17, 32-33.)
Individually, and in the aggregate, Constance’s rules violations justify our decision to treat her claims as forfeited. Constance’s brief is “in dramatic noncompliance with appellate procedures.” (Nwosu v. Uba, supra, 122 Cal.App.4th at p. 1246.) That fact warrants a finding of forfeiture. (Id. at p. 1247.)
C. Conclusion
Constance’s claims of error are forfeited. As a consequence, we shall affirm the July 2009 written order of dismissal, which we deem a final judgment in the case. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 581d; Etheridge v. Reins Internat. California, Inc. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 908, 913.)
DISPOSITION
The order of dismissal is affirmed. Respondent Paul Laub shall have costs on appeal.
WE CONCUR: Premo, Acting P.J., Elia, J.