Opinion
A117174
6-9-2008
EDDIE C. WELBON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MT. ZION SPIRITUAL TEMPLE, INC., Defendant and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appellant Eddie C. Welbon appeals from an order granting respondent Mt. Zion Spiritual Temple, Inc.s motion for judgment on his complaint, and granting it relief on both its cross-complaint and a related court action. We affirm.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
It is unnecessary for us to recite the underlying dispute in any detail. Respondent is a church, having its place of worship in Oakland. Respondent hired appellant after a fire destroyed the church building, ostensibly to help rebuild the church and otherwise assist in running respondents affairs. Approximately five weeks after appellant was hired, respondent, through one of its officers, terminated the hiring agreement. Subsequently, appellant brought an action against respondent for breach of contract, and respondent filed a cross-complaint against him for fraud and other causes of action. (Case No. 199540.) Respondent also filed an action to cancel certain grant deeds, quiet title to real property, for negligence per se, and punitive damages. (Case No. 227003.) The actions were consolidated.
On January 3, 2007, at the close of appellants presentation of the evidence, the court orally granted respondents motion for judgment on the complaint.
On February 7, 2007, the trial court filed its judgment after trial. The court "granted" respondents cross-complaint for unfair competition, civil conspiracy and declaratory relief, and "granted" its complaint for cancellation of grant deeds, quiet title to real property, and negligence per se. Appellant was enjoined from using the name Mt. Zion Spiritual Temple, Inc., and restrained from taking any actions with respect to certain real property belonging to respondent. The court also cancelled deeds pertaining to other properties, and declared null and void multiple corporate registrations that appellant and his associates had taken in respondents name.
DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 631.8, when a party moves for judgment, "[t]he court as trier of the facts shall weigh the evidence and may render a judgment in favor of the moving party." (Code Civ. Proc., § 631.8, subd. (a).) Because the trial court evaluates the evidence as a trier of fact, it may refuse to believe some witnesses while crediting the testimony of others. (Jordan v. City of Santa Barbara (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1245, 1255.) We apply the substantial evidence standard of review to a judgment entered under section 631.8, reviewing the record in the light most favorable to the judgment and making all reasonable inferences in favor of the prevailing party. (San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Bd. v. Handlery Hotel, Inc. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 517, 528.) We will not reverse the trial courts order granting the motion if its findings are supported by substantial evidence, even if other evidence in the record conflicts. (Roth v. Parker (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 542, 549-550.)
B. Appellant Has Not Demonstrated Error
We begin by setting forth the basic principles of appellate review. First, "A judgment or order of a lower court is presumed to be correct on appeal, and all intendments and presumptions are indulged in favor of its correctness." (In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133.) Because error is never presumed, it is every appellants duty to demonstrate error in the record the appellant produces before the reviewing court. (9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, § 518, p. 562.)
Second, "It is incumbent upon the parties to an appeal to cite the particular portion of the record supporting each assertion made. It should be apparent that a reviewing court has no duty to search through the record to find evidence in support of a partys position." (Williams v. Williams (1971) 14 Cal.App.3d 560, 565.) To that end, California Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C), provides that a brief must "Support any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page number of the record where the matter appears."
Third, every argument presented by an appellant must be supported by both coherent argument and pertinent legal authority. (Berger v. California Ins. Guarantee Assn. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 989, 1007.) If either is not provided, the appellate court may treat the issue as waived. (Ibid.)
Appellants opening brief is disjointed and difficult to follow. He fails to make clear the nature or scope of his claim of error by setting forth any reasoned legal argument. His failure to provide proper citations to any pertinent legal authority or to the clerks transcript or reporters transcript further exacerbates the problem. For example, the argument section of his brief commences with the following sentence: "In the Trial Court Rev. Arthur Burnett testified under oath and Under [sic] the penalty of perjury gave false testimony that there [sic] no Such [sic] thing as a National Board of Directors." No citation to the record is provided and, as best we can discern, the single reporters transcript included in the record on appeal does not contain any testimony by the identified witness.
Appellate courts "will not develop the appellants arguments for them." (Dills v. Redwoods Associates, Ltd. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 888, 890, fn. 1.) Nor is this court "inclined to act as counsel for . . . any appellant and furnish a legal argument" as to whether or how a trial courts ruling constituted error. (In re Marriage of Schroeder (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1154, 1164.)
Appellant is not exempt from the rules of appellate procedure just because he is representing himself on appeal in propria persona. "Under the law, a party may choose to act as his or her own attorney. [Citations.] `[S]uch a party is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys. [Citation.] [Citation.] Thus, as is the case with attorneys, pro. per. litigants must follow correct rules of procedure." (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247.) Because appellant has failed to set forth any legal argument demonstrating error, there is no basis upon which to reverse the courts judgment.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur:
Marchiano, P. J.
Margulies, J. --------------- Notes: The record on appeal in this case is far from satisfactory. We take our description of the facts from appellants trial brief, out of necessity.