Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. BC376365, Ronald Sohigian, Judge.
Law Offices of Mansfield Collins, Mansfield Collins; and Sean Chandra for Defendant and Appellant.
Law Offices of Larry Fabrizi and Larry Fabrizi for Plaintiff and Respondent.
KRIEGLER, J.
In this action for dissolution of a limited liability corporation, defendant and appellant James Ha appeals from an attorney fee award in favor of plaintiff and respondent Hyon Mi Yi. Ha contends the attorney fee award was an abuse of discretion and the trial court lacked jurisdiction to order the sale of the corporation’s real property. We lack jurisdiction to consider any arguments regarding the order of sale, because it is not embraced within Ha’s notice of appeal from the award of attorney fees. We affirm the attorney fee award on the basis the record is inadequate to establish reversible error. (Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295-1296.)
Ha purports to argue the trial court erred by making an order adding the corporation as a party. We summarily reject the contention because the record lacks any indication such an order was made.
The inadequacy of the record prevents us from providing a statement of the facts and statement of trial court proceedings. In any event, a full recital is unnecessary to deciding the issues in the appeal.
Failure to Appeal the Order of Sale
On November 19, 2009, after a 12-day trial without a jury, the trial court issued a statement of decision and judgment, which, inter alia, ordered that 3320 Beverly Blvd., LLC be dissolved, its affairs wound up, and the proceeds distributed. On January 5, 2010, the trial court granted Yi’s motion for attorney fees in the amount of $85,548.75. On March 8, 2010, Ha filed a notice of appeal from the “order granting plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees.” On March 16, 2010, the judgment was amended to include an order that the real property owned by 3320 Beverly Blvd., LLC be sold forthwith. The attorney fees previously awarded were included as part of the amended judgment. No notice of appeal was filed from the March 16, 2010 amended judgment.
Ha attached a purported notice of appeal from the March 16, 2010 “amended judgment” to his case information statement, but that document does not confer jurisdiction on this court to review the order of sale. He did not file the notice of appeal from the “amended judgment” in the trial court, as required by California Rules of Court, rule 8.100(a)(1).
Ha contends the trial court had no jurisdiction to order the sale of the real property in the amended judgment. Yi responds the contention is not reviewable because Ha did not appeal from the order. As the order was not appealed from, we lack jurisdiction to decide the contention.
“‘If a judgment or order is appealable, an aggrieved party must file a timely appeal or forever lose the opportunity to obtain appellate review.’ [Citations.]... [I]f no appeal is taken from [the judgment or order], the appellate court has no jurisdiction to review it.” (Norman I. Krug Real Estate Investments, Inc. v. Praszker (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 35, 46.) “‘Despite the rule favoring liberal interpretation of notices of appeal, a notice of appeal will not be considered adequate if it completely omits any reference to the judgment being appealed.’ [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 47.)
The amended judgment, including the order of sale, was an appealable final judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a); see Hypolite v. Carleson (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 566, 576, fn. 10.) As Ha took an appeal only from the order granting Yi’s motion for attorney fees and failed to appeal from the subsequent amended judgment and order of sale, we have no jurisdiction to review the propriety of the order of sale. (See Norman I. Krug Real Estate Investments, Inc. v. Praszker, supra, 220 Cal.App.3d at p. 47.)
The Record on Appeal is Inadequate to Review the Attorney Fee Award
Ha contends the attorney fee award was an abuse of discretion, in that Yi was not the prevailing party, Yi’s victory was only partial, and the fees awarded were excessive. Yi responded the record is inadequate to review the contention. We conclude Ha failed to provide an adequate appellate record and affirm the order.
“It is well settled, of course, that a party challenging a judgment has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record.” (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574.) “‘A judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct. All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent....’ (Orig. italics.) [Citation.]” (Rossiter v. Benoit (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 706, 712.) In the absence of a proper record on appeal, the judgment is presumed correct and must be affirmed. (Maria P. v. Riles, supra, 43 Cal.3d at pp. 1295-1296.)
Missing from the record are the complaint, the answer, most minute orders of the proceedings, and the statement of decision. There is no reporter’s transcript or suitable substitute such as a settled statement of the trial, the oral proceedings on November 19, 2009, when the court issued the statement of decision and judgment, or the oral proceedings on March 16, 2010, when the trial court included the attorney fee award in the amended judgment.
Without these records, Ha cannot meet his burden of showing reversible error. It is impossible for this court to review his abuse of discretion claim. The inadequacy of the record was asserted in Yi’s respondent’s brief, but Ha did not file a motion to augment the record to include the additional relevant documents and transcripts, or address the issue of his failure to include them in the record in a reply brief. In the absence of an adequate record, we must indulge all inferences to support the order challenged on appeal and presume the trial court properly exercised its discretion.
DISPOSITION
The order awarding attorney fees to Hyon Mi Yi is affirmed. Hyon Mi Yi is awarded her costs on appeal.
We concur: ARMSTRONG, Acting P. J., MOSK, J.