Opinion
C082833
07-24-2018
JOANN ESPINOSA, Plaintiff, v. GEORGE ESPINOSA, Defendant and Appellant; PLACER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES, Real Party in Interest and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. SDR70144)
George Espinosa appeals from a postjudgment order denying his request to "terminate" his child support arrears. George filed a short opening brief that is rambling and largely unintelligible and ignores many of the California Rules of Court. It is evident he believes the trial court erred in denying his motions, but George has failed not only to make coherent his claims on appeal, he failed to support his claims with relevant authority and citations to the record. We affirm the orders of the court.
BACKGROUND
The postjudgment order from which George appeals, was issued following a contested hearing in the trial court. The appellate record, however, does not include a reporter's transcript from that hearing and the minute order reflects no court reporter was present at the hearing. Therefore, we treat this as an appeal on the judgment roll. (Allen v. Toten (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1079, 1082-1083; Krueger v. Bank of America (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 204, 207.)
The limited record we have establishes that a judgment dissolving the parties' marriage was entered on December 20, 1984. Included within that judgment was an order that George pay to Joann $100 "per month, per child, as and for child support," for the parties' five children and $150 each month for spousal support.
In November 2015, after the Placer County Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) became a party to the case, George moved the court to give him credit on his support arrears for December 1984 to June 1985. He claimed that during that period, he was living with and supporting the family. Joann filed a declaration in support of George's motion.
Based on Joann's declaration, DCSS removed the "charges for child and spousal support" from December 1984 to June 1985, including the accrued interest. DCSS provided the court and George with a revised child support audit reflecting a balance of arrears totaling $24,086.77. DCSS also advised they were no longer enforcing the spousal support order. George dropped his motion from the court's calendar.
On March 4, 2016, George filed a motion in the trial court asking the court to "terminate" his child support arrearages. He also asked the court to return to him "money taken and overpayments in accordance with correct[e]d judgement [sic] . . . ." Joann submitted a declaration in support of George's motion, stating she had received "over $50,000 direct from George" and DCSS had collected over $80,000 from George. DCSS opposed the motion.
On April 7, 2016, the court continued the hearing on George's motion to allow George to hire a court reporter. Days later, George filed a motion asking the court to give him "credit for child support payments from March 1988 thru January 2000: money recieved [sic] by [Joann] from social security disability payments to minor children." DCSS opposed this motion as well and asked the trial court to "determine arrears in accordance with" a certified audit submitted to the court. The certified audit reflected George's child support arrears to be $17,495.70, as of May 3, 2016.
George subsequently filed a declaration arguing the equitable doctrines of laches and estoppel precluded DCSS from enforcing the child support order. He also argued that Code of Civil Procedure section 695.221 applied to the child support order, thus reducing his arrears. DCSS responded: all of George's arguments lacked merit.
On May 18, 2016, at George's request, the court again continued the hearing on George's motions. A few weeks later, George filed a third motion. This time, George sought the "return of $10,000 veterans check issued to petitioner on 12-18-14 which are exempt under 38 U.S. C.A. [§] 5301 effective Dec. 16, 2003." He filed several declarations and a handwritten document in support of his claims.
The issue of child support arrears was heard in a contested hearing on June 15, 2016, before Commissioner Michael A. Jacques. George represented himself, DCSS was represented by counsel. The parties were advised, pursuant to Family Code section 4251, that a commissioner was presiding over the hearing.
The court ordered George's June 13 motion off calendar, denied George's motion "regarding child support," and denied George's motion "regarding credit of satisfaction of judgment." The court also determined that, as of May 3, 2016, George's child support arrears (including interest) totaled $17,495.70. Finally, the court ruled that "[n]o further motions filed by [George], with respect to the accuracy of the [DCSS] audit[,] will be considered by the court."
George appeals from that order.
DISCUSSION
In a challenge to a trial court's judgment, that judgment is presumed to be correct and the appellant has the burden to prove otherwise by presenting legal authority and analysis on each point made, supported by appropriate citations to the material facts in the record, else the argument may be deemed forfeited. (Badie v. Bank of America (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 779, 784-785; Guthrey v. State of California (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1115-1116; Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 849, 856.) It is the appellant's responsibility to support claims of error with citation and authority; we are not obligated to perform that function on the appellant's behalf and may treat the contentions as forfeited. (Lewis v. County of Sacramento (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 107, 113; Badie, at pp. 784-785.)
Appellant also must present each point separately in the opening brief under an appropriate heading, showing the nature of the question to be presented and the point to be made. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B); Opdyk v. California Horse Racing Bd. (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1826, 1830, fn. 4.) This is not a mere technical requirement; it is essential to the appellate process. Appellants must "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 . . . of the exact question under consideration, instead of being compelled to extricate it from the mass." (Landa v. Steinberg (1932) 126 Cal.App. 324, 325; accord, Opdyk v. California Horse Racing Bd., supra, 34 Cal.App.4th at p. 1830, fn. 4.)
Appellant's opening brief fails on all of these grounds. Under the circumstances, he has forfeited his claims of error.
DISPOSITION
The orders of the court are affirmed.
HULL, Acting P. J. We concur: HOCH, J. RENNER, J.