Opinion
D047669
12-14-2006
In re the Marriage of KIMBERLY and RICHARD F. SKINNER. KIMBERLY M. McSHERRY, Respondent, v. RICHARD F. SKINNER, Appellant.
Richard Skinner appeals an order to pay support arrears of $ 39,333 and $10,000 in costs and fees to Kimberly Skinner, now known as Kimberly McSherry (McSherry). He also appeals the restraining order granted to McSherry. On appeal, Skinner contends the trial court abused its discretion by (1) improperly evaluating his income; (2) not allowing him to explain the reasons he and McSherry calculated different amounts for arrears; (3) ignoring the effects of the visitation schedule on the child support Skinner owed and paid; and (4) granting a restraining order to McSherry against Skinner.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Judgment was entered for the dissolution of marriage of Skinner and McSherry on September 12, 2000. In 2005, McSherry filed an Order to Show Cause for modification of child custody, child support, visitation, attorney fees, and to establish arrears. Numerous hearings followed on the issue of arrears. On August 25, 2005, the trial court held its final hearing on the arrears issue. The commissioner found Skinners testimony was unreliable and found Skinner made misrepresentations to the court. The court ordered entry of judgment in favor of McSherry for $39,333 in support arrears and $10,000 for fees and costs for the hearing. On October 11, 2005, the trial court granted a restraining order to McSherry against Skinner.
DISCUSSION
Although Skinner asserts the trial court abused its discretion by its orders to pay support arrears and by granting a restraining order to McSherry, his appellate briefs do not contain any citations to the appellate record to support the factual, procedural, and legal assertions set forth in the opening brief. His briefs also contain many factual assertions outside the record on appeal. Skinners reply brief does contain some citations to the record. However, the reply brief is organized around eight alleged misrepresentations made by McSherry and her attorney, rather than addressing the issues forming the basis of his appeal. The reply brief does not address the issue of the trial courts abuse of discretion.
California Rules of Court, rule 14(a)(1)(C) provides that each appellate brief must "[s]upport any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page number of the record where the matter appears." Rule 14(a)(2)(C) provides that an appellants opening brief must "[p]rovide a summary of the significant facts limited to matters in the record."
Statements of fact not part of, or supported by, citations to the record on appeal are improper and cannot be considered on appeal. (Rule 14(a)(2)(C); Pulver v. Avco Financial Services (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 622, 632; Kendall v. Barker (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 619, 625.) "If a party fails to support an argument with the necessary citations to the record, that portion of the brief may be stricken and the argument deemed to have been waived. [Citation.]" (Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 849, 856; see also City of Lincoln v. Barringer (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1211, 1239; Guthrey v. State of California (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1115.) We are not required to search the record to determine whether it contains support for Skinners contentions. (See Mansell v. Board of Administration (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 539, 545.) Because Skinners opening brief does not contain any citations to the appellate record to support his assertions of fact, procedure and law, we consider his contentions on appeal waived. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1247; City of Lincoln, at p. 1239; Duarte, at p. 856; Guthrey, at p. 115.)
We note that Skinner filed this appeal in propria persona. However, appearing in propria persona does not exempt Skinner from compliance with established appellate rules. (Nwosu v. Uba, supra, 122 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1246-1247 [litigants appearing in propria persona must follow the same procedural rules as attorneys].) Accordingly, we conclude Skinner has not carried his burden on appeal to show the trial court abused its discretion by ordering $39,333 in arrears and $10,000 for fees and costs and by granting a restraining order to McSherry.
DISPOSITION
The orders are affirmed. McSherry is entitled to costs on appeal.
We Concur:
NARES, Acting P. J.
IRION, J. --------------- Notes: All rule references are to the California Rules of Court.