Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
Solano County Super. Ct. Nos. FFL088681 and J35137; Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. 194243
GEMELLO, J.
Appellant Carol Mardeusz appeals from a final judgment awarding Leo Magers custody of their daughter. Mardeusz contends that the trial court erred in declaring her a vexatious litigant and that she is entitled to an additional child support award. We reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.
Background
This is the eleventh appeal filed in this court by appellant Mardeusz in a 16-year battle involving, at the outset, an action to establish paternity of her infant daughter and child support and resulting in an August 2006 final judgment ordering that defendant Leo Magers have custody of his daughter, now 17 years old. This court has summarily denied fivepetitions for writs of mandate filed by Mardeusz. (Nos. A076511, A082491, A084118, A084646, and A099723.) We also summarily dismissed an appeal filed by Mardeusz (No. A084488), denied her permission to proceed with another appeal (No. A099763), and denied, in unpublished opinions, three other appeals. (Mardeusz v. Magers (Aug. 11, 1999) A084959; Mardeusz v. Magers (Dec. 27, 1999) A086197; and In re Haley M. (Aug. 1, 2007) A115260.)
The judgment appealed from bears three different numbers, Solano County Superior Court numbers FFL088681 and J35137, and Sonoma County Superior Court number 194243.~(AA 110)~ In December 2006, this court permitted Mardeusz to proceed with the present appeal, which challenges the 1998 vexatious litigant order entered in Sonoma County Superior Court number 194243. This Division recently affirmed the juvenile court determination on the custody issue in Solano County Superior Court number J35137, a dependency proceeding initiated by the Solano County Health and Social Services Department. (In re Haley M. (Aug. 1, 2007) A115260.)
It is impossible to provide a coherent factual and procedural background to the issues raised on appeal based on the opening brief and scattershot appendix provided by Mardeusz. In particular, her opening brief substantially fails to comply with rule 8.204(a)(2) of the California Rules of Court, which requires that the brief, “(A) State the nature of the action, the relief sought in the trial court, and the judgment or order appealed from; [¶](B) State that the judgment appealed from is final, or explain why the order appealed from is appealable; and [¶](C) Provide a summary of the significant facts limited to matters in the record.”
Despite Mardeusz’s failure to comply with the Rules of Court, this court will proceed to address the merits of the appeal.
Respondent Magers did not file a brief in this appeal.
Discussion
Our analytic approach to this appeal is dictated by the bedrock proposition that “all intendments and presumptions are indulged in favor of” the correctness of the trial court’s judgment. (In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133.) “A reviewing court must presume that the record contains evidence to support every trial court finding of fact, and an appellant which contends that some particular finding is not supported must set forth in its brief a summary of the material evidence on that issue. Unless the appellant does so, the error assigned is deemed to be waived. The appellant must state fully, with transcript references, the evidence that it claims to be insufficient to support the trial court’s findings.” (Trailer Train Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 565, 587-588.)
We are not obligated to ferret through the record looking for evidence to support appellant’s contentions (Friends of the Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 859, 877; Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 849, 856), and we treat as waived all arguments not supported by reasoned argument and citation of authority. (Badie v. Bank of America (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 779, 784-785.) Mardeusz is not exempt from the rules because she is representing herself on appeal in propria persona. “Under the law, a party may choose to act as his or her own attorney. [Citations.] ‘[S]uch a party is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys. [Citation.]’ [Citation.] Thus, as is the case with attorneys, pro. per. litigants must follow correct rules of procedure.” (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247.) We now turn to Mardeusz’s contentions, each of which merits little discussion.
As noted, this particular appeal follows a final judgment ordering that defendant respondent Magers, rather than Mardeusz, have custody of their daughter. The primary issue raised on appeal is a challenge to a December 23, 1998, order in Sonoma County Case number 194243 declaring Mardeusz to be a vexatious litigant. In moving for that order, Magers listed nine allegedly frivolous motions and described other problematic litigation conduct by Mardeusz. The trial court granted Magers’ motion, finding that Mardeusz “has repeatedly filed unmeritorious motions and engaged in other tactics which are frivolous.”
Mardeusz contends that insufficient evidence supported the vexatious litigant order and that the order was otherwise inappropriate in the circumstances of this case. However, there is no indication in the record that Mardeusz objected to Magers’ motion requesting that she be declared a vexatious litigant. No written opposition appears in the record on appeal, and the trial court order states that Mardeusz was not present at the hearing on the motion. In these circumstances, evidence that Mardeusz’s objections were raised below is part of her burden of showing reversible error. (In re Marriage of Arceneaux, supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 1133.) We conclude the objections have been forfeited because there is no evidence they were presented to the trial court. (In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 221-222.)
Mardeusz also contends that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order declaring her a vexatious litigant because at the time the order was entered her appeal in case number A084488 was pending in this court. In particular, notice of appeal was filed in September 1998, the vexatious litigant order was entered in December 1998, and the remittitur issued in February 1999. Even assuming that Mardeusz did not forfeit this claim that the lower court lacked jurisdiction (see In re Christopher B. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 551, 558), the contention is without merit. “ ‘The effect of the appeal is to remove the subject matter of the order from the jurisdiction of the lower court.’ ” (Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 197; see also Code Civ. Pro. § 916, subd. (a).) Section 916, subdivision (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure specifies that “the trial court may proceed upon any other matter embraced in the action and not affected by the judgment or order” on appeal. Because Mardeusz has not shown that the vexatious litigant issue bore any connection to the order on appeal, there is no basis to conclude that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction.
Finally, Mardeusz contends that she is entitled to an additional child support award. However, the judgment does not address the issue of support and it is unclear what decision below Mardeusz contends was in error. She references orders from 1991, 1992, and 1995 requiring Magers to pay support and to provide financial information. She makes unsupported assertions that Magers never provided the required financial information. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C).) Nothing in the record shows that Mardeusz requested that the trial court enforce the earlier orders regarding support. Mardeusz’s request for additional child support is not cognizable on appeal.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur. JONES, P., NEEDHAM, J.