IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
December 29, 2010
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF ANN N. AND ISAAC OZOBIANI. ANN N. OZOBIANI, RESPONDENT,
ISAAC OZOBIANI, APPELLANT.
Super. Ct. No. 07FL00414
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hull, Acting P.J.
Marriage of Ozobiani CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Appellant father, Isaac Ozobiani appeals from court orders denying father's motion for reconsideration, and another ordering father to pay $1,937 each month in child support. For the reasons that follow, we shall affirm.
Father has elected to proceed on a clerk's transcript. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.121.) Thus, the appellate record does not include a reporter's transcript of the trial in this matter. This is referred to as a "judgment roll" appeal. (Allen v. Toten (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1079, 1082-1083; Krueger v. Bank of America (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 204, 207.)
The limited record we have establishes the following: On December 9, 2008, the trial court ordered father to pay to mother, Ann N. Ozobiani, child support for their three minor children totaling $2,658 per month. The court noted in its ruling that the Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) was opening an enforcement case against father. The court thus asked DCSS to conduct an audit of father's overall child support arrearages.
In August 2009, the parties appeared before the trial court having received the DCSS's audit of father's arrearages. As reflected in the court's minute order, father and mother stipulated that the audit accurately reflected father owed $19,964.06 in child support arrearages. They further agreed this amount included all Social Security offsets. Accordingly, the court ordered father to increase his monthly arrearage payments to $500 per month beginning in September 2009, and increasing again to $750 per month in January 2010.
On November 20, 2009, father filed a motion to reconsider or set aside the court's prior order. Father failed to indicate which order he was seeking to set aside, but argued the "Motion was filed on [June 28, 2008] to modify support. Court ruling indicated at that time that when issue is [(illegible)] it will be retroactive to the date filed. Give credit also to derivates benefit paid and continues to flow to [mother]. This case may be referred to Dept. 125 in Judge Cecil's court for final review if needed. [¶] . . .[¶]
"I am requesting for reconsideration based on the court ruling on this matter. I have all previous court rulings [(illegible)] this issue of arrears. In Judge Cecil's court, he made a ruling on [February 27, 2009] that stipulated that 'orders relating to child support and spousal support . . . are subject to retroactive modification.'"
On February 11, 2010, Commissioner Harman ordered father to pay to mother $1,937 each month in child support. Commissioner Harman noted in the minute order that father was entitled to an offset for his Social Security benefits totaling $1,047 each month, but the benefits were expected to stop.
Later that same day, father appeared before Judge Mauro, who reissued an order to show cause, compelling the parties to appear for a subsequent hearing on February 18, 2010, noting the hearing was on mother's motion to modify child and spousal support, and seeking attorney fees.
Father also appeared before Commissioner Brody on February 11, 2010, on father's motion for reconsideration, filed November 20, 2009. The minute order from that hearing reads as follows: "Motion for reconsideration denied w/ prejudice. [Father] is ordered not to file any further motions on issues that were stipulated to on [August 24, 2009] or [the] court will consider such motions to be filed by a vexatious litigant."
On March 10, 2010, father filed a notice of appeal. In his notice, father states he "disagrees with Sacramento County Superior Court judgment entered on [February 11, 2010]. AB 2669 - Code of Civil Procedures Section 695.221 (exhibit 2) states that a non-custodial parent is to receive credit for the FULL amount of the auxiliary payment toward child support. The court ruling in this case circumvented this law by doing business under the old code of civil procedures - Section 695.221. This is based on fact that a legal error was made by the court. Additionally, the court in it's judgment stated 'Motion for reconsideration is denied with prejudice.'"
On appeal, we must presume the trial court's judgment is correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) Thus, we must adopt all inferences in favor of the judgment, unless the record expressly contradicts them. (See Brewer v. Simpson (1960) 53 Cal.2d 567, 583.)
It is the burden of the party challenging a judgment to provide an adequate record to assess claims of error. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1140-1141.) An appellant must present an analysis of the facts and legal authority on each point made and must support the analysis with appropriate citations to the material facts in the record. If an appellant fails to do so, the argument is forfeited. (County of Solano v. Vallejo Redevelopment Agency (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1262, 1274; Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 849, 856.)
When an appeal is "on the judgment roll" (Allen v. Toten, supra, 172 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1082-1083), we must conclusively presume evidence was presented that is sufficient to support the court's findings. (Ehrler v. Ehrler (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 147, 154.) Our review is limited to determining whether any error "appears on the face of the record." (National Secretarial Service, Inc. v. Froehlich (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 510, 521; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.163.)
These restrictive rules of appellate procedure apply to father even though he is representing himself on appeal. (Leslie v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 117, 121; see also Nelson v. Gaunt (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 623, 638-639; Wantuch v. Davis (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 786, 795.)
On the record in this appeal, we find no error.
Father contends the trial court erred in failing to give him credit for his Social Security benefits and incorrectly calculated his arrearages. There were three orders issued on February 11, 2010. Judge Mauro's order does not address the issue of child support and is not a final order, serving only to set further hearings.
Commissioner Brody's order states only that father's motion for reconsideration is denied. This order does not address the calculation of child support other than to say father is precluded from filing further motions on the issue of child support arrears. Thus the issue of calculating child support is not properly before the court on this order.
Commissioner Harman's order includes an order that father pay to mother $1,937 each month for child support. Nevertheless, there is no reporter's transcript from the hearing. We must therefore presume the court found sufficient evidence to support the calculation of child support. (Ehrler v. Ehrler, supra, 126 Cal.App.3d at p.154.) On the face of this record, we find nothing to suggest otherwise. (National Secretarial Service, Inc. v. Froehlich, supra, 210 Cal.App.3d at p. 521; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.163.)
Indeed, the only evidence in the record is that in August 2009, father agreed to the amount of arrears as calculated by the DCSS. Father contends he never "received or saw anything in writing" regarding this stipulation but offers no evidence or legal argument to support his claim. Accordingly, any claim the stipulation was entered as a result of fraud, mistake, or duress is forfeited. (See Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th at p. 856 [appellant's burden to support claim with citations to material facts in the record or the claim is forfeited].)
We find no error.
The orders of the trial court are affirmed. Father shall reimburse Mother for her costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1).)
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.