Opinion
A147455
03-24-2017
In re the Marriage of ERIKA D. and JASON T. LITTLEFIELD. ERIKA D. KALBERMATTER, Respondent, v. JASON T. LITTLEFIELD, Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. D14-00386)
Appellant Jason Littlefield contends insufficient evidence supports the trial court's determination that loan proceeds received during the parties' marriage were his separate property. Because he has not provided this court an adequate record on appeal, we reject his claim.
BACKGROUND
On January 17, 2014, respondent Erika Kalbermatter filed a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage. A two-day trial was held on certain issues, including the property status of a $200,000 promissory note made during the parties' marriage. At trial, the trial court received testimony from respondent, appellant, and appellant's brother.
The trial court filed a Final Statement of Decision on November 20, 2015, and a Judgment of Dissolution on November 23. The court awarded appellant the parties' house located in Pinole, California, subject to payment to respondent of her share of the equity in the home. The court determined the fair market value of the house was $440,000. Appellant was awarded a reimbursement credit of $66,824 related to the purchase of the house, and respondent was due $77,397 for her share of the remaining equity. Appellant was directed to pay respondent a $72,897 equalization payment, which reflected prior spousal support payments.
As to the $200,000 promissory note, the trial court found the presumption the loan was community debt had been rebutted "by the evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom." The note, dated November 1, 2010, was entered between appellant as "Borrower" and Jerold and Kay Littlefield as "Lender." The note was signed by appellant but not by respondent. In finding the community property presumption had been rebutted, the court relied on: the lack of references to respondent in the promissory note and the lack of her signature on the note; appellant's testimony the "loan was secured only by 'his [appellant's] work;' " respondent's lack of involvement in the negotiation of the loan; appellant's "brother's testimony as to his loans from their parents and the terms and actions thereon;" "[d]emands by parents made only to [appellant] for repayment of the note;" and "[d]isbursement of the loan funds exclusively by [appellant], including his payment of separate debts of $55,000-$80,000 in 2010-2011."
The trial court actually refers to appellant as "respondent" because he is the respondent to the dissolution petition below. --------
This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, appellant contends no substantial evidence in the record supports the trial court's finding that the community property presumption had been rebutted as to the $200,000 loan. (See In re Marriage of Grinius (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1179, 1187 ["Loan proceeds acquired during marriage are presumptively community property; however, this presumption may be overcome by showing the lender intended to rely solely upon a spouse's separate property and did in fact do so."].)
This court is unable to resolve appellant's claim because the record does not include a reporter's transcript of the trial testimony regarding the loan. " ' "A judgment or order of the [trial] court is presumed correct. All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent . . . ." [Citation.]' [Citation.] It is the appellant's affirmative duty to show error by an adequate record. [Citation.] 'A necessary corollary to this rule [is] that a record is inadequate, and appellant defaults, if the appellant predicates error only on the part of the record he provides the trial court, but ignores or does not present to the appellate court portions of the proceedings below which may provide grounds upon which the decision of the trial court could be affirmed.' " (Osgood v. Landon (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 425, 435; see also In re Valerie A. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 987, 1002 ["It is the appellant's responsibility to include in the appellate record the portions of the reporter's transcript relevant to appellant's issues on appeal."].)
In reaching its verdict the trial court expressly relied on testimony provided by appellant and his brother. Appellant does not dispute the testimony at trial was relevant to determination of the character of the loan. Accordingly, this court cannot evaluate appellant's claim of insufficiency of the evidence. Appellant contends the reporter's transcript is not required because it is also acceptable to provide a "suitable substitute" for the transcript. (Stasz v. Eisenberg (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1032, 1039.) However, he directs this court to nothing in the appellate record, such as a settled statement, that could substitute for the reporter's transcript. (See Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 ["plaintiff has failed to include either a transcript or a settled statement of the portion of the trial relating to the issue of damages"].) The trial court's characterization of the testimony in its statement of decision is not a suitable substitute for the transcript.
Because appellant has failed to provide a record adequate for this court to consider his claim of insufficiency of the evidence, we reject his claim on appeal. (Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 121, 132 ["We reject [appellants'] claim, therefore, because they failed to provide this court with a record adequate to evaluate this contention."]; Stasz v. Eisenberg, supra, 190 Cal.App.4th at p. 1039 ["It is [appellant's] obligation . . . to present a complete record for appellate review, and in the absence of a required reporter's transcript and other documents, we presume the judgment is correct."]; In re Valerie A., supra, 152 Cal.App.4th at p. 1002 ["because we do not have an adequate record of the . . . proceeding, we cannot knowledgeably rule on the merits of this issue, and we consider the claim abandoned"].)
DISPOSITION
The trial court's judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
SIMONS, Acting P.J. We concur. /s/_________
NEEDHAM, J. /s/_________
BRUINIERS, J.