Opinion
B161673.
7-16-2003
DIETMAR MAGES et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. DEE McDANIEL, Defendant and Appellant.
Dorothy Dee McDaniel, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiffs and Respondents.
Dee McDaniel appeals the issuance of an injunction that prohibits her from harassing Dietmar and Annalee Mages (Mages). (Code Civ. Proc., § 527.6.) We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Mages and McDaniel are unfriendly neighbors. The Mages filed a section 527.6 petition alleging, among other things, that McDaniel repeatedly made threats against them, trespassed on the Mages property, and engaged in a variety of other harassing conduct. In response, McDaniel filed her own section 527.6 petition alleging various acts of harassment by the Mages against her.
Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted both petitions and issued virtually identical permanent injunctions enjoining McDaniel and the Mages from contacting, harassing, threatening or attacking each other. McDaniel appeals the injunction against her.
DISCUSSION
Section 527.6 permits an individual to obtain an injunction against harassment. As relevant to this case, the plaintiff must show by clear and convincing evidence "a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose." ( § 527.6, subd. (b).) The conduct "must be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the plaintiff." (Ibid.)
Representing herself, McDaniel contends that an injunction should not have been issued against her because the evidence presented by the Mages was not truthful. It is axiomatic that questions of credibility are not determined on appeal. The issuance of a section 527.6 injunction is reviewed for substantial evidence. (Schild v. Rubin (1991) 232 Cal. App. 3d 755, 762, 283 Cal. Rptr. 533.) We resolve factual conflicts and questions of credibility in favor of the prevailing party, and will uphold an order issuing an injunction if it is supported by substantial evidence. (Ibid.)
The record on appeal as designated by McDaniel is not adequate for this court to review her contention that the evidence is insufficient to support the result. It is also inadequate to review any contentions that bear on the credibility of any of the parties who testified at the evidentiary hearing. The trial court made its ruling on the basis of testimony by McDaniel and Dietmar Mages, but the record on appeal does not include a transcript of that hearing.
Although respondents did not file a brief, McDaniel, as the appellant, has the burden of affirmatively demonstrating error by providing a record adequate for review of her contentions. (See, e.g., Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish & Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal. App. 3d 1043, 1051, fn. 9, 263 Cal. Rptr. 104.) Because there is no record of the injunction hearing, we must conclusively presume that evidence presented by the Mages was sufficient to support the courts findings and orders. (Diamond View Limited v. Herz (1986) 180 Cal. App. 3d 612, 615, fn. 2, 225 Cal. Rptr. 651.)
In addition, a substantial portion of McDaniels appellate brief appears to be directed at a proceeding and order that is neither part of the instant case nor identified in the notice of appeal or the record as a whole. That proceeding and order are not a part of this appeal or otherwise before this court.
The judgment (order granting the injunction) is affirmed. Appellant shall bear costs on appeal.
We concur: GILBERT, P.J., and YEGAN, J. --------------- Notes: All statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.