Opinion
C086320
06-24-2019
In re the Marriage of STEPHEN E. PUTNAM and JENNIFER CRISOLOGO PUTNAM. STEPHEN E. PUTNAM, Appellant, v. JENNIFER CRISOLOGO PUTNAM, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. SDR28575)
Appellant Stephen E. Putnam appeals from a trial court order dividing the parties' marital estate, including confirmation of their separate property. On appeal, Stephen contends there is insufficient evidence to support the court's decision relative to two pieces of real property. In support of his contentions, Stephen filed a 15-page opening brief in this court with sporadic and vague references to the record on appeal and relevant legal authority.
In a challenge to an order of the court, the trial court's order is presumed to be correct and the appellant has the burden to prove otherwise by presenting legal authority and analysis on each point made, supported by appropriate citations to the material facts in the record, else the argument may be deemed forfeited. (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; Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 849, 856.) 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, at pp. 784-785.) Stephen did not comply with the rules and thus his claims on appeal are forfeited.
DISPOSITION
The orders of the court are affirmed.
/s/_________
HOCH, J. We concur: /s/_________
MAURO, Acting P. J. /s/_________
KRAUSE, J.