IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Shasta)
November 30, 2011
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF DARCI AND WILLIAM WILSON. DARCI WILSON, RESPONDENT,
WILLIAM WILSON, APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. 162755)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Raye , P. J.
Marriage of Wilson
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
William Wilson (William) appeals from a final judgment on reserved issues wherein the trial court ordered William to pay to Darci Wilson (Darci) $500 per month in spousal support for a period of five years. On appeal, William contends the trial court erred in "not honoring the agreement of the parties to waive permanent spousal support." William also contends there is insufficient evidence to support the trial court's order of support. Finding neither of William's claims to have merit, we affirm the judgment of the court.
William has elected to proceed on a clerk's transcript. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.122.) 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 (Allen); Krueger v. Bank of America (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 204, 207.)
The limited record we have establishes the following: On October 13, 2009, the trial court presided over a trial on issues reserved when William and Darci's marriage was dissolved. The court subsequently issued a written statement of decision memorializing findings and orders made at the conclusion of trial.
Included in the trial court's statement of decision was the trial court's finding that "the parties agreed to waive permanent spousal support." The court nevertheless also found that based on numerous "equitable considerations," the waiver of spousal support was not binding on Darci. Thus, the court ordered William to pay $500 each month to Darci as spousal support for a period of five years. William objected to the court's finding. The trial court "denied" William's objections.
The order for spousal support was later incorporated into a judgment on reserved issues. William appeals from the judgment.
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, 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 (Ehrler)). 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 (National Secretarial Service); see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.163.)
On the record in this appeal we find no error.
William claims the trial court erred in finding Darci was not bound by the waiver of permanent spousal support. In concluding the waiver was not binding on Darci, the trial court found there was no consideration for the agreement, Darci was not represented by counsel when the agreement was entered into, and the length of the marriage was 24 and one-half years. William challenges each of these findings on appeal. With no reporter's transcript of the trial, however, we must presume the court found sufficient evidence to support each of its findings. (Ehrler, supra, 126 Cal.App.3d at p. 154.) On the face of this record, we find nothing to suggest otherwise. (National Secretarial Service, supra, 210 Cal.App.3d at p. 521; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.163.)
William further contends: "The trial court committed reversible error by making a permanent spousal support order that was inconsistent with the facts and circumstances existing at the time that the judgment was entered." Again, with no reporter's transcript of the trial, we must presume the court found sufficient evidence to support the order of permanent spousal support. (Ehrler, supra, 126 Cal.App.3d at p. 154.)
The judgment is affirmed. William shall reimburse Darci for her costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1).)
We concur: ROBIE , J. MAURO ,J.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.