Opinion
A168171
10-14-2024
JOANNE AUSTIN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PAUL PILETTE, Defendant and Respondent. In re the Marriage of PAUL PILETTE and JOANNE AUSTIN. PAUL PILETTE, Respondent, v. JOANNE AUSTIN, Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
(San Francisco City & County Super. Ct. Nos. CGC-20-587303, FDI-20-794123)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
RODRIGUEZ, J.
Joanne Austin and Paul Pilette married in 2012, Pilette filed a petition for dissolution in 2020, and the trial court issued a status judgment in 2022. It thereafter held a five-day hearing on remaining issues and filed a statement of decision, largely resolving things in Pilette's favor. The judgment on reserved issues incorporated the statement of decision. Austin appeals, and we affirm.
We resolve this case by memorandum opinion, reciting only those facts necessary to resolve the issue raised. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1; People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851.) Among other things, the trial court rejected Austin's requests to (1) enforce prenuptial and postnuptial agreements; (2) obtain spousal support; and (3) terminate a domestic violence restraining order protecting Pilette. Austin has requested oral argument. A party has the right to oral argument in any appeal"' "considered on the merits and decided by a written opinion." '" (Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1254.) Because we resolve this matter without reaching the merits, the parties have no right to oral argument, and it would not assist us.
A trial court's judgment is presumed correct, and it is Austin's burden to "affirmatively demonstrate error through reasoned argument, citation to the appellate record, and discussion of legal authority." (Bullock v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 655, 685.) Self-represented litigants are" 'entitled to the same, but no greater, consideration than other litigants and attorneys.'" (Tanguilig v. Valdez (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 514, 520.) In considering whether Austin has met her burden, we disregard factual assertions unsupported by citations to the record and legal arguments unsupported by citations to legal authority. (Ibid.)
Austin's briefing precludes our considering the merits of her claims. The vast majority of the factual assertions therein are unsupported by record citations. (Tanguilig v. Valdez, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at p. 520.) Moreover, she does not offer "any pertinent or intelligible legal argument," and we are not "required to consider alleged error where the appellant merely complains of it without pertinent argument." (Berger v. Godden (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 1113, 1119.) For example, her opening brief contains headings such as "DUE PROCESS," "BIASED AND UNFAIR CONDUCT," "EVIDENCE BIAS," "ABUSE OF DISCRETION," and "ERROR OF LAW," but the headings are followed for the most part by factual assertions rather than reasoned argument supported by citation to legal authority. (Ibid.) Thus, Austin cannot satisfy her burden on appeal. (Bullock v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., supra, 159 Cal.App.4th at p. 685.)
Even assuming Austin offered reasoned legal arguments for us to consider, it is also her burden "to demonstrate, on the basis of the record presented to the appellate court, that the trial court committed an error that justifies reversal of the judgment." (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608-609.) An inadequate record "will frequently be fatal to a litigant's ability to have his or her claims of trial court error resolved on the merits by an appellate court." (Id. at p. 608.) In other words," '[f]ailure to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against [the appellant].'" (Id. at p. 609.) That is the case here.
The trial court conducted numerous pretrial hearings, and the hearing on the reserved issues took place over five days. In her notice designating the record on appeal, Austin included the reporter's transcript for two days of the five-day hearing - the only reported proceedings. But she failed to provide an adequate record of what occurred at the other hearing days or pretrial hearings. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.120(b).) In the absence of a transcript, she could have obtained an agreed or settled statement but did not. (Ibid.) Without an adequate record, we cannot resolve her claims on the merits, and the issues must be resolved against her. (Jameson v. Desta, supra, 5 Cal.5th at pp. 608-609.)
The judgment is affirmed. In the interests of justice, the parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(5).)
WE CONCUR: TUCHER, P.J., FUJISAKI, J.