Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. BD415104, Marjorie S. Steinberg, Judge.
Darcy McCarthy, in pro. per.; and Keith A. Bregman for Appellant.
Kevin McCarthy, in pro. per., for Respondent.
JACKSON, J.
INTRODUCTION
Appellant Darcy McCarthy (Darcy) appeals from the order after stipulation filed on December 23, 2009, after a hearing that occurred on October 15, 2009. At that hearing, the parties reached a settlement that was placed on the record. Darcy contends that the proposed order should have been sent to Judge Louis Meisinger, the judicial officer who heard the proceedings on October 15, 2009. Darcy further contends that Judge Marjorie Steinberg, who signed the order, did not consider Darcy’s objections to the order and that the order was inconsistent with the transcript of the proceedings. We disagree and affirm the order.
To avoid confusion, we refer to appellant Darcy McCarthy and respondent Kevin McCarthy by their first names. (Cf. In re Marriage of Corona (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1209, fn. 1.)
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The parties in this case have a long and storied history of litigation. The dissolution of marriage proceeding was filed on October 18, 2004 by respondent Kevin McCarthy (Kevin). It is not necessary to detail the history of the numerous court hearings between the parties because it is not relevant to a resolution of the limited issues currently before the court. The matter that is subject to the current appeal resulted from cross-motions for reimbursement filed by the parties. The matter was scheduled for a hearing on October 15, 2009. At the hearing before Judge Meisinger, the parties reached a settlement of all the existing financial disputes. Counsel for Kevin was ordered to prepare the order.
Kevin’s attorney prepared a proposed findings and order after stipulation. On October 19, 2009, he sent the document to Darcy’s counsel, before submitting it to the court. Darcy’s counsel, in turn, sent a letter to Kevin’s attorney setting forth his objections to the proposed findings and order. On or about November 2, 2009, Kevin’s attorney forwarded his proposed findings and order, along with the correspondence from Darcy’s counsel, to the trial court. On November 6, 2009, Darcy’s attorney filed formal objections with the court. Judge Steinberg signed the proposed findings and order after stipulation on December 23, 2009.
DISCUSSION
In addressing an appeal, we begin with the presumption that the trial court’s ruling is correct. (In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133; Fleishman v. Superior Court (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 350, 357.) “It is well settled, of course, that a party challenging a judgment has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record.” (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574; Robbins v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 313, 318.) We also acknowledge a self-represented litigant’s understanding of the rules on appeal is, as a practical matter, more limited than an experienced appellate attorney’s. Whenever possible, we do not strictly apply technical rules of procedure in a manner that deprives litigants of a hearing. (See Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985.)
Order Signed by Judge Steinberg
Darcy complains that the proposed order should have been submitted to Judge Meisinger for signature rather than Judge Steinberg. We disagree.
Code of Civil Procedure section 635 provides as follows: “In all cases where the decision of the court has been entered in its minutes, and when the judge who heard or tried the case is unavailable, the formal judgment or order conforming to the minutes may be signed by the presiding judge of the court or by a judge designated by the presiding judge.”
Kevin states in his brief that sometime after the hearing on this matter, Judge Meisinger was transferred from the Central District to the Northwest District of the Los Angeles Superior Court and that Judge Steinberg signed the order in her capacity as the presiding judge. We take judicial notice of the fact that Judge Meisinger’s transfer took place in November 2009 and that Judge Steinberg was the presiding judge of the family law court on December 23, 2009. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (h).) Darcy has failed to demonstrate any violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 635 here. We therefore conclude that Judge Steinberg properly signed the findings and order.
The Lack of a Hearing on the Objections
Darcy submits that the trial court erred in either not addressing the objections or ruling on the objections. We disagree.
The court was not required to set a hearing on the objections. California Rules of Court, rule 3.1590(j) and (k) do not support the position taken by Darcy. Rule 3.1590(j) simply provides, “[a]ny party may, within 10 days after service of the proposed judgment, serve and file objections thereto.” Rule 3.1590(k) states, “[t]he court may order a hearing on proposals or objections to a proposed statement of decision or the proposed judgment.” In the instant case, there was no proposed statement of decision. The trial court had the discretion to set a hearing on the objections, but in the exercise of that discretion, declined to do so.
At the time Judge Steinberg signed the order, she had available to her the reporter’s transcript of the proceedings from October 15, 2009, the proposed findings and order after stipulation, objections to proposed findings and order after stipulation filed by Darcy on November 6, 2009, letters from Darcy’s counsel dated October 23 and October 30, 2009 to Kevin’s counsel, and a letter to Judge Meisinger dated November 2, 2009, explaining the dispute concerning the proposed order. It is presumed that the trial court’s ruling is correct. (Fleishman v. Superior Court, supra, 102 Cal.App.4th at p. 357.) There is nothing in the record to suggest that Judge Steinberg did not review the documents available or made a ruling that was contrary to the law or facts. Darcy has failed to meet her burden of affirmatively demonstrating error. (Shaw v. County of Santa Cruz (2008) 170 Cal.App.4th 229, 267.)
Objections to the Proposed Findings and Order After Stipulation
Darcy contends that the proposed order does not accurately set forth the stipulation of the parties and was not intended to resolve all existing claims between the parties. We find no merit to her contention.
After counsel recited the stipulation on the record in open court, the trial court questioned both parties to make sure that they had the opportunity to speak to their counsel about the terms of the stipulation and that they agreed to the terms. Both parties acknowledged that they wished to have the court make an order pursuant to the agreement.
While Darcy set forth four objections to the proposed findings and order, the trial court expressly found that the settlement included all existing claims with the exception of the QDRO issues, standing orders and Darcy’s exercise of her interest in stock options.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
We concur: WOODS, Acting P. J., ZELON, J.