Opinion
C083146
06-25-2018
GEORGE MARTIN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALBERT J. MARTIN, Defendant and Appellant; SUSAN J. MARTIN, as Successor Trustee, etc., Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. PP20150180)
Albert J. Martin, appellant appearing in propria persona, appeals from an order finding he breached his fiduciary duties and "acted fraudulently with trust funds." The order further compels appellant to return to the trust account the more than $265,000 he misappropriated from that account, and to pay attorney fees.
Appellant filed a 26-page opening brief that is rambling, irrelevant, frequently unintelligible, and often offensive. Unfamiliar with the principles of law governing the trial court's ruling and the limited scope of appellate review, appellant does little more in his brief than express his frustration with the judicial system, level insults at trial counsel and the trial court, and complain about the trial court's ruling.
In a challenge to a judgment, the trial court's judgment is presumed to be correct and the appellant has the burden to prove otherwise by presenting legal authority and reasoned analysis on each point made, supported by appropriate citations to the material facts in the record, or else the argument may be deemed forfeited. (Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 849, 856; Badie v. Bank of America (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 779, 784-785; Guthrey v. State of California (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1115-1116.) It is the appellant's responsibility to support claims of error with citation and authority; we are not obligated to perform that function on the appellant's behalf and may treat the contentions as forfeited. (Lewis v. County of Sacramento (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 107, 113; Badie, supra, at pp. 784-785.)
Appellant must present each point separately in the opening brief under an appropriate heading, showing the nature of the question to be presented and the point to be made. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B); Opdyk v. California Horse Racing Bd. (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1826, 1830, fn. 4.) This is not a mere technical requirement; it is essential to the appellate process. Appellants must "present their cause systematically and so arranged that those upon whom the duty devolves of ascertaining the rule of law to apply may be advised . . . of the exact question under consideration, instead of being compelled to extricate it from the mass." (Landa v. Steinberg (1932) 126 Cal.App. 324, 325; accord, Opdyk, supra, at p. 1830, fn. 4.)
Appellant's opening brief fails on all of these grounds. Under the circumstances, appellant has forfeited his claims of error.
Appellant also attached several documents to his opening brief as "exhibits" and asks this court to consider them in resolving his appeal. None of these documents are included in the record on appeal, nor are they regulations or rules that are not readily accessible. Accordingly, we must disregard them. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(d).)
California Rules of Court, rule 8.204(d) reads in pertinent part: "A party filing a brief may attach copies of exhibits or other materials in the appellate record or copies of relevant local, state, or federal regulations or rules, out-of-state statutes, or other similar citable materials that are not readily accessible. These attachments must not exceed a combined total of 10 pages, but on application the presiding justice may permit additional pages of attachments for good cause. . . ." --------
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Respondent George Martin is awarded his costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1), (2).)
BUTZ, Acting P. J. We concur: HOCH, J. RENNER, J.