Filed 11/6/19 Marriage of Homan CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re Marriage of PAMELA E. and RONALD R. HOMAN, JR.

PAMELA E. HOMAN,

Respondent,

v.

RONALD R. HOMAN, JR.,

Appellant.

G056952

(Super. Ct. No. 02D012344)

O P I N I O N

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Lon F. Hurwitz, Judge and Barry S. Michaelson, Temporary Judge (pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21). Affirmed. Respondent’s Motion to Take Judicial Notice or New Evidence. Denied. Appellant’s Motion to Augment the Record and/or Take New Evidence. Denied.

Ronald R. Homan, Jr., in pro. per., for Appellant.

The Law Offices of Saylin & Swisher, Brian G. Saylin and Lindsay L. Swisher for Respondent.

* * *

INTRODUCTION

Ronald R. Homan, Jr., appeals from the judgment dissolving his marriage to Pamela E. Homan, which was entered after a court trial. Ronald argues he was wrongfully excluded from participating in the trial after he informed the trial court that he was not appearing as Ronald R. Homan, Jr., but “under his birth name of: Ronald-Rex: Homan, II,” and that the judgment thereafter inaccurately stated he did not appear for trial. Ronald also argues the judgment was “ordered based on fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, conspiracy & perjury, with mal[i]ce and pre-conceived intent to defraud the court.”

It is the appellant’s responsibility to provide us with an adequate record of the proceedings in the trial court, legal analysis, and citations to the record and legal authority relevant to the issues raised on appeal. As Ronald has not met that responsibility, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

Ronald and Pamela were married in September 1983 and separated in December 2002; Pamela filed a petition for marital dissolution. In June 2018, the trial court found Ronald had been given proper notice of trial but failed to appear as ordered. As set forth in the court’s minute order, the court made findings regarding several issues including the division of property and attorney fees, and granted dissolution of the marriage. The court directed Pamela’s counsel to prepare the formal judgment.

Judgment of dissolution was entered in August 2018, stating the following: (1) the Homans’ marriage was dissolved effective June 25, 2018; (2) the Homans did not have minor children at the time the judgment was entered; (3) the family residence located in Laguna Niguel was worth $900,000; (4) the residence had encumbrances of $405,000; (5) one-half the amount of equity in the residence was $247,500; (6) as of June 30, 2018, Ronald owed Pamela $438,748 in support arrearages; (7) applying Ronald’s equity interest in the residence to the amount he owed Pamela in support arrearages, he still owed Pamela $191,248, plus continuing interest at the rate of 10 percent; and (8) the family residence was awarded to Pamela as her sole and separate property from which Ronald must vacate no later than July 10, 2018. The judgment also confirmed specific items as Pamela’s separate property, stated the court reserved jurisdiction over spousal support beginning July 1, 2018, and required Ronald to pay $5,000 in attorney fees to Pamela’s counsel.

Ronald filed a “Request for Order/Judgement to be Set Aside, Including Order to Pay Opposing Party’s Attorney Fees.” The notice of hearing on the request stated that a hearing would be held on September 14, 2018. The request stated the following facts in support of the request: “1) I had been given advice inadvertently that was contrary on how to correctly address the court at the hearing date on 6-25-2018. This was done by mistake and excusable neglect on my part. [¶] 2) The judgment against me was obtained by actual fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, perjury and opposing party failed to comply with disclosure requirements when the judgment was entered.” In October 2018, Ronald filed a document entitled “Supplemental Declaration for Request for Order to Be Set Aside. Notification to Court of Attorney Complaint Submitted to the California State Bar to Be Included in Re[q]uest to be Heard 10-12-2018.”

Our record does not contain any ruling on Ronald’s request to set aside the judgment. Ronald filed a notice of appeal stating he was appealing from the default judgment taken against him. Ronald elected to proceed without a reporter’s transcript.

MOTIONS TO AUGMENT AND TAKE NEW EVIDENCE

Pamela filed a motion requesting that we augment the record on appeal with certain portions of the trial court record that were not included in the clerk’s transcript and also requesting that we take judicial notice of the Homans’ marriage certificate, or, alternatively, to receive it as new evidence. Ronald did not file an opposition to the motion. We granted the motion to augment the record on appeal, but deferred ruling on the request to take judicial notice of the marriage certificate or to receive it as new evidence. We now deny the request to take judicial notice of the marriage certificate or otherwise take the marriage certificate as new evidence on appeal because it is irrelevant to the resolution of the issues on appeal.

Six months after the clerk’s transcript was filed, and weeks after appellate briefing was complete, Ronald moved to augment the record or, alternatively, to have us take as new evidence, about 100 pages of exhibits, which he describes as having been filed but not admitted by the trial court; these are the same exhibits the clerk of the superior court had noted were not included in the clerk’s transcript because they were not in the trial court’s possession. Pamela filed an opposition to Ronald’s motion on the grounds it was untimely, without a reasonable excuse, and there were no exceptional circumstances warranting this court taking the exhibits as new evidence.

We deny the motion as untimely. Augmentation requests “made after a reasonable time has expired from receiving the [appellate] record . . . will be denied absent a strong showing of unusual or unavoidable circumstances giving rise to the delay.” (People v. Preslie (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 486, 492.) Ronald provided no reasonable explanation for the delay. In any event, it is unclear how the subject documents are relevant to the resolution of this appeal.

DISCUSSION

A trial court’s ruling is presumed to be correct and the burden of demonstrating error rests squarely on the appellant. (See Winograd v. American Broadcasting Co. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 624, 631-632, and cases cited therein.) When an appellant raises an issue “but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citations to authority, we treat the point as waived.” (Badie v. Bank of America (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 779, 784-785; see Kim v. Sumitomo Bank (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 974, 979 [appellate court not required to consider points not supported by citation to authorities or record].) An appellant may not simply make the assertion the ruling is erroneous and leave it to the appellate court to figure out why. (Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 852.)

It is also appellant’s burden to provide an adequate record. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1140-1141.) These rules apply when a person is self-represented. (Leslie v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 117, 121.)

Ronald has elected to proceed on a clerk’s transcript; our record does not include a reporter’s transcript and is therefore a judgment roll appeal. (Code Civ. Proc., § 670, subd. (b)); Navarro v. Perron (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 797, 801.) In a judgment roll appeal, we conclusively presume sufficient evidence was presented to support the trial 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. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.163.)

Ronald argues he was wrongfully excluded from participating in trial and the judgment erroneously states the trial was heard as “a default or uncontested” matter. Ronald’s contention of error does not appear on the face of the record. In his appellate opening brief, he contends he was present in court at the time trial was scheduled but was denied his right to be heard: “On 6-25-18, at approximately 9:00 a.m., [Ronald] was present in court, Dept. L66 and when asked [to] identi[f]y himself, stated his true birth name. The lower court judge, Lon Hurwitz, then demanded [Ronald] sit down and excluded [him] from further participation in the trial. The lower court judge . . . then transferred the case to Dept. L52 to continue the hearing, excluding [Ronald] from [the] hearing and denying [him] entry into Dept. L52, or the right to be heard. This enabled [Pamela] and her attorney to commit fraud on the court by presenting fraudulent and misleading document to the court to deprive [Ronald] of his property.” Ronald explains: “This appeal is based on the simple fact that the court had been previously notified by [Ronald] that [he] would be appearing under his birth name of: Ronald-Rex: Homan, II, living, breathing soul, sentient being, Holder-in-due-Course, only on special appearance as a Third Party Intervener, Attorney-in-Fact, and Authorized Representative, with legal status and standing to be heard on the case.”

Ronald does not offer any citation to the record supporting his account of what happened in the trial court. The trial court’s minute order from June 25, 2018 states that: “As ordered by the Supervising Judge, the Honorable Lon F. Hurwitz, this matter is transferred to Department L52 for purposes of this hearing only” and that the “Court finds notice was properly given and [Ronald] failed to appear.” Nothing in our record supports Ronald’s account of being excluded from the trial, much less wrongfully excluded. Ronald’s own statements in his appellate briefs strongly suggest he refused to appear at trial. Ronald has failed to show error.

Ronald also argues in his appellate opening brief: “As a result of the court denying his right to participate in the trial, this enabled [Pamela] and her attorney to purposely and knowingly conceal from the court true facts of community property ownership, assets and liabilities, present forged, falsified and outdated documents, as true and correct under penalty of perjury to permanently deprive [Ronald] of his rightful property. This defrauded the court from making a fair, equitable and proper decision.” To the extent Ronald is arguing insufficient evidence supported the judgment, by declining to have an oral transcription of the trial prepared, he has forfeited that argument. (Ehrler v. Ehrler, supra, 126 Cal.App.3d at p. 154 [for judgment roll appeals, we must presume the trial court heard substantial evidence to support its findings].) To the extent Ronald is challenging the admission of evidence presented by Pamela at trial, such an argument is also forfeited given the “omission of the reporter’s transcript precludes appellant from raising any evidentiary issues on appeal.” (Hodges v. Mark (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 651, 657.)

We acknowledge Ronald has represented himself in the trial court and in this appeal. However, “mere self-representation is not a ground for exceptionally lenient treatment. Except when a particular rule provides otherwise, the rules of civil procedure must apply equally to parties represented by counsel and those who forgo attorney representation.” (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984 985.) Ronald has not established any reversible error in the judgment.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Respondent shall recover costs on appeal.

FYBEL, J.

WE CONCUR:

O’LEARY, P. J.

ARONSON, J.