Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL of a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. MD025957. Wendy L. Kohn, Judge.
William R. Pardee for respondent and appellant.
Jeffrey A. Kopczynski for petitioner and respondent.
ZELON, J.
In this marital dissolution case, husband and appellant Rudolf Eckhardt appeals from the determination of a number of issues pertaining to property and custody questions. Finding no error in the issues properly presented in this appeal, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Rudolf Eckhardt and Theresa Eckhardt were married on February 14, 1995, and separated on August 26, 2002. Two children, Chelsey and Stephanie, were born during the marriage. The Petition for dissolution was filed on October 9, 2002, and a timely response was filed. Child support was ordered on December 4, 2002. Status was bifurcated and a judgment of dissolution as to status only was entered on January 27, 2005. Child custody and visitation were tried on May 3, 2006. The remaining issues were tried to the court in January 2007, and the court entered judgment on April 27, 2007. This timely appeal followed.
We refer to the parties in this case by their first names for clarity, and not with disrespect. (See In re Marriage of Weiss (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 106, 109, footnote 1.)
Rudolf asserts 13 claims of error as to the judgment: (1) Did the trial court commit reversible error when it refused to disqualify itself; (2) Did the trial court commit reversible error when it made an order for child support arrears; (3) Did the trial court commit reversible error when it made an order for child support in the amount of $766 per month; (4) Did the court commit reversible error when it made an order for spousal support in the amount of $250 per month; (5) Did the court commit reversible error when it found that appellant was not entitled to reimbursement in the amount of $89,000.00 or any other sum when his separate funds were used to pay off the balance of the mortgage on the family residence and in the additional sum of $11,000 when his separate property funds were used to pay off the balance owed on the parties’ 1997 Chevrolet pick up truck; (6) Did the court commit reversible error when it found that appellant encumbered the family residence by executing two deeds of trust; (8) Did the court commit reversible error when it found that appellant’s conduct was oppressive and that he acted with malice and that his conduct constituted fraud within the meaning of Civil Code section 3294; (9) Did the court commit reversible error when it awarded the entire interest in the family residence to respondent; (10) Did the court commit reversible error when it ordered appellant to reimburse the community in the sum of $25,810 for his use of the family residence; (11) Did the court commit reversible error when it ordered appellant to pay to respondent the sum of $24,870 as an equalizing payment for the division of the parties’ community property; (12) Did the court commit reversible error when it found that the 1998 Prowler trailer was the community property of the parties; (13) Did the court commit reversible error when it did not provide for any visitation of the two minor children of the parties by appellant?
Because Rudolf fails to include factual or legal analysis of many of these issues in his briefs, we will reach only those issues properly raised, as discussed specifically below.
See Reyes v. Kosha (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 451, 466, footnote 6; Lyon v. Chinese Hospital Assn. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 1331, 1336, footnote 2; Dills v. Redwoods Associates Ltd. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 888, 890, footnote 1.
DISCUSSION
1. Appellant Has Waived His Right to Review of His Disqualification Motion
On the first day of trial of the reserved issues, the trial court heard petitions for restraining orders sought by Theresa against Rudolf’s mother, Seda Eckhardt, and his girlfriend, Liisa Kunst, both of whom were also on his witness list for the trial. After the court granted the petitions, Rudolf made an oral motion for disqualification pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 170.1 and 170.2. The court indicated both that such a motion needed to be in writing and that the court saw no grounds for disqualification in this matter. The proceedings continued, and testimony commenced. Rudolf filed a motion in writing the following day and the court continued to take testimony pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.4. On January 18, 2007, the court ordered the statement of disqualification stricken. Rudolf sought no review of that order prior to this appeal.
Code of Civil Procedure section 170.3(d) provides that the determination of disqualification is not appealable, but may be reviewed only by writ of mandate, sought within 10 days of the order. As a result, Rudolf was required to seek review of the court’s order issued under the authority of Code of Civil Procedure section 170.4(b) well prior to the entry of judgment in this matter. (Glassman v. McNab (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1593, 1600.) Having failed to do so, he may not seek review in this appeal. (People v. Hull (1991) 1 Cal.4th 266, 273.)
2. There Was No Error in the Award of Child Support Arrears
Rudolf asserts that the court had no authority to award child support arrears in light of the fact that no hearing was ever held on child support. The record, however, is to the contrary. An award of child support of $500 was made in court, with all parties present in 2002. The court reaffirmed this order in November 2003, based on Rudolf’s assertion that no operative order had been made, and found Rudolf guilty of contempt for failure to pay that support. Rudolf did not appeal.
The child support order was an interlocutory order dispositive of the rights of the parties on the issue of child support, directing payment of money. As a result it was subject to direct appeal at the time it was made. (In re Marriage of Skelley (1976) 18 Cal.3d 365, 386; In re Marriage of Weiss, supra, 42 Cal.App.4th at p. 119.) Because there was no appeal at that time, the order is final and binding. (Ibid.) In this appeal, appellant challenges the order of arrears solely on the basis that there was no order for child support; as this claim is belied by the record, it must fail.
3. Appellant Cannot Now Challenge the Child Support Order
Rudolf also challenges the order of child support on the grounds that no income and expense declarations were before the court at the time it was made. Were such a claim proper, it could have been raised only at the time of the order; for the reasons stated above, an appeal of that order at this time is not timely. The issue has been waived.
4. Appellant Has Waived the Issue of Spousal Support
Appellant seeks to challenge the award of spousal support in this matter, but fails to present adequate argument for review. Appellant sets forth in his briefing only evidence he views as favorable to his position, ignoring evidence presented to, and relied on, by the court for its award. That failure to present the record is a waiver. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246; Brockey v. Moore (2003)107 Cal.App.4th 86, 96-97.) Moreover, Rudolf makes only a passing reference to any authority for his position, and we decline to develop his argument for him. “Mere suggestions of error without supporting argument or authority other than general abstract principles do not properly present grounds for appellate review.” (Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1066, 1078.)
5. There is No Showing of Error as to the $100,000 of Separate Funds or the $23,000 Down Payment on the Family Home
Rudolf claims that the court erred in failing to order reimbursement to him of $100,000 claimed as his separate property, and in treating his down payment on the family home as a gift to Theresa. The only evidence before the court on this issue was the testimony of Theresa and her expert witness which the court found credible. Rudolf presented no testimony, failing to testify himself or to bring forward any witness on this issue. While he asserts that the law permits a separate property contribution to be traced to its source, even where there has been commingling of assets as Theresa testified, he failed to provide the evidence necessary for the trial court to make the finding he argues for on appeal. As was true of the spousal support issue, he fails to present to the court the substantial evidence on which the court relied in making its findings on this issue, waiving review.
Rudolf neither appeared at the trial, nor called any witnesses. He had previously designated 12 witnesses, including himself.
6. Rudolf Has Waived All Other Issues
As to all remaining issues, Rudolf presents no legal authority, and minimal factual discussion. As the party seeking to challenge an order on appeal, he has the burden to provide an adequate record to demonstrate prejudicial error; as a reviewing court, we do not presume error. (Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295-1296.) He has failed to meet that burden as to the remaining issues.
“If an appeal is pursued, the party asserting trial court error may not then rest on the bare assertion of error but must present argument and legal authority on each point raised. (People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 793.) This latter rule is founded on the principle that an appealed judgment is presumed correct, and appellant bears the burden of overcoming the presumption of correctness. [Citation.]” (Boyle v. CertainTeed Corp. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 645, 649-650.) “We need not address points in appellate briefs that are unsupported by adequate factual or legal analysis.” (Placer County Local Agency Formation Com. v. Nevada County Local Agency Formation Com. (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 793, 814.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Respondent is to recover her costs on appeal.
We concur: PERLUSS, P. J., WOODS, J.