Opinion
A154814
12-10-2019
ANTONIO MEDINA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. FRANCISCO MEDINA, Defendant and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Marin County Super. Ct. No. CIV 1602829)
Appellant Antonio Medina (Antonio) appealed after the trial court entered judgment for his brother, respondent Francisco Medina (Francisco), following a court trial. This court first dismissed the appeal after Antonio failed to timely file an opening brief but reinstated the appeal after he requested reinstatement. Because there is an inadequate record to evaluate any of the arguments in the opening brief Antonio ultimately filed, we affirm.
The record on appeal consists solely of a 12-page clerk's transcript that lacks the underlying complaint and includes only the judgment entered after a court trial, the notice of appeal, a one-page document in Spanish that apparently constitutes the parties' underlying agreement, and appellant's notice designating the record. All we know of the case comes from the trial court's judgment, which we quote in full: "The trial herein too[k] place on May 11, 2018. [Appellant] Antonio Medina and [respondent] Francisco Medina are brothers and each represented himself in this proceeding.
"The Court, after hearing the sworn testimony of the parties, reviewing the two exhibits admitted into evidence, and reviewing the file in this case, finds that [appellant] Antonio Medina did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that [respondent] Francisco Medina owes him all or any of the $79,300 alleged to be owed in the complaint herein. [Francisco] acknowledged that he executed the 'IOU' in the amount of $79,300. However, [Antonio] acknowledged receiving over $100,000 from [Francisco].
"Therefore, good cause appearing, judgment will be entered for [respondent] Francisco Medina in this case." Although the court apparently has the "IOU" to which the judgment referred, we lack a reporter's transcript that would shed any light on the parties' testimonies regarding the agreement.
The parties, both of whom are still proceeding without attorneys, have provided short appellate briefs disagreeing over whether Francisco owes Antonio additional money on their agreement. They also both appeared for a brief oral argument. Given that we presume that a judgment or order of the trial court is correct, and an appellant defaults if there is an inadequate record for meaningful review, we have no reason to set aside the trial court's ruling. (Gee v. American Realty & Construction, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1416.)
The judgment is affirmed. Francisco shall recover his costs on appeal.
/s/_________
Humes, P.J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
Banke, J. /s/_________
Sanchez, J.