Filed 9/30/20 Marriage of Vigeant 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Butte)

—-

In re the Marriage of JULIE and CHRIS VIGEANT. C089783

JULIE VIGEANT,

Appellant,

v.

CHRIS VIGEANT,

Respondent.

(Super. Ct. No. 16FL00360)

Appellant Julie Vigeant, representing herself, appeals from an award of spousal support in a judgment of dissolution of her marriage to respondent Chris Vigeant. Appellant argues that, for a variety of reasons, the trial court’s award of $300 per month is too low and that the judgment should therefore be reversed. We will affirm the judgment due to appellant’s failure to provide an adequate record to permit appellate review.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Although our ability to review this matter has been severely hampered by the inadequate appellate record, we have discerned the following procedural history.

In April 2016, after more than 11 years of marriage, appellant filed a petition for legal separation from respondent. In connection with the petition, appellant also requested an order of spousal support. In support of her request for spousal support, appellant declared that she was indigent, living on food stamps, and had been homeless since June 2015. After a hearing, the court awarded temporary spousal support in the amount of $737 a month.

In August 2017, apparently at respondent’s request, the court reduced the amount of spousal support to $300 per month. Appellant then filed a series of requests seeking to increase the amount of spousal support. Appellant primarily argued that she was unemployed and had no source of income, whereas respondent received monthly Social Security Disability Insurance and motion picture retirement benefits. All of appellant’s requests to increase her spousal support were denied.

On May 7, 2019, after an evidentiary hearing, the trial court issued a minute order granting dissolution of marriage and ordering respondent to continue paying spousal support to appellant in the amount of $300 per month. In its order, the court concluded that respondent’s Social Security and motion picture retirement benefits were separate property. The court ordered respondent to prepare the form of judgment. Judgment was entered on June 4, 2019. On June 6, 2019, appellant filed a notice of appeal.

DISCUSSION

We review spousal support orders under the deferential abuse of discretion standard. (In re Marriage of Ciprari (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 83, 110.) “ ‘ “As long as the court exercised its discretion along legal lines, its decision will be affirmed on appeal if there is substantial evidence to support it.” [Citations.]’ ” (Ibid.)

On appeal, we begin with a presumption that the trial court’s judgment is correct and supported by substantial evidence. (In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133.) “ ‘ “All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent . . . .” ’ [Citation.]” (Elena S. v. Kroutik (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 570, 574.) The party challenging the judgment has the burden of affirmatively demonstrating reversible error by providing an adequate record. (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 609.) “ ‘ “A necessary corollary to this rule is that if the record is inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the decision of the trial court should be affirmed.” ’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.)

The record here is plainly inadequate. Aside from failing to include a copy of the actual judgment, appellant has provided a record consisting only of documents that support her view of the case. Appellant has omitted virtually all the respondent’s pleadings and evidence, including his “at issue” memorandum and trial brief. As we recognized in Osgood v. Landon (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 425, “ ‘a record is inadequate . . . if the appellant predicates error only on the part of the record he [or she] provides the trial court, but ignores or does not present . . . portions of the proceedings below which may provide grounds upon which the decision of the trial court could be affirmed.’ ” (Id. at p. 435, quoting Uniroyal Chemical Co. v. American Vanguard Corp. (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 285, 302.)

Further, despite the fact that both appellant and respondent testified at trial, appellant has not provided a reporter’s transcript, agreed statement, or settled statement. Without a proper record of the parties’ testimony, we do not know what was said during any of the proceedings below or at trial. Thus, we must presume the trial court acted properly and that its findings are supported by the evidence. (Bond v. Pulsar Video Productions (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 918, 924; Estate of Fain (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 973, 992.)

We are mindful that appellant appears in this court without counsel, but that does not exempt her from the procedural and substantive rules governing appeals. “A self-represented party is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater, consideration than other litigants having attorneys. [Citation.]” (Elena S. v. Kroutik, supra, 247 Cal.App.4th at p. 574; Bianco v. California Highway Patrol (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1125-1126.)

As the party challenging a discretionary ruling, it is appellant’s burden to demonstrate abuse of discretion on an adequate record. She has not met that burden. Without a record with which to overcome the presumption that the court’s ruling was correct, appellate review is not possible and we have no alternative but to reject appellant’s claims and affirm the judgment.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Each party is responsible for its own costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(5).)

KRAUSE , J.

We concur:

HOCH , Acting P. J.

RENNER , J.