Filed 5/26/20 Marriage of Lopez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 the Marriage of ARTHUR and CHERYL LOPEZ.

ARTHUR LOPEZ,

Appellant,

v.

CHERYL LOPEZ,

Respondent.

G057379

(Super. Ct. No. 16D001283)

O P I N I O N

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Nancy J. Kasch, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Request for judicial notice denied. Order affirmed.

Arthur Lopez, in pro. per., for Appellant.

No appearance for Respondent.

Appellant Arthur Lopez appeals from the denial of his request for order to “suspend child support” (RFO). Because he did not meet his burden to provide us with a record that demonstrates the claimed error, we must affirm.

Our review begins with the principle that an “‘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, and error must be affirmatively shown. This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’” (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) The appellant has the burden on appeal to provide us with a record that demonstrates the claimed error. (Webman v. Little Co. of Mary Hospital (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 592, 595.) “‘Failure to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against [appellant].’” (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608-609 (Jameson).)

Here, appellant failed to provide a reporter’s transcript or a complete clerk’s transcript. The clerk’s transcript he provided does not contain the RFO or the declaration (presumably in opposition to the RFO) filed by the County of Orange as intervenor. Without those documents we cannot review appellant’s claim of error. This failure alone mandates we affirm the order. (Jameson, supra, 5 Cal.5th at pp. 608-609.)

A separate and sufficient ground on which to affirm is the lack of a reporter’s transcript. Without a reporter’s transcript we have no idea of the basis for the court’s ruling. Appellant asserts the court stated it had no authority to decide the matter, “refused to allow proceeding to continue,” and did not allow testimony or evidence to be submitted. But the minute order from the hearing, the one substantive document relevant to the issue on appeal that is included in the clerk’s transcript, shows both parties were sworn and testified. Thus, contrary the claim in appellant’s brief, the trial court took testimony on the RFO, and then denied it without stating the reasons in the minute order.

Appellant points out there was no reporter present at the hearing nor, he claims, was there an audio recording. Although unclear, it appears he is asking us to order whoever was responsible for documenting the ruling to provide a record of the hearing and that his costs for the record be waived since he has previously been granted fee waivers. This we cannot do.

Where there is no court reporter for a hearing, the proper method to provide a record of oral proceedings is a settled statement. (California Rules of Court, rule 8.137.) A settled statement is also proper when a party has been granted a fee waiver. (Id., rule 8.137(b)(1)(B).) A settled statement is a summary of the court proceedings prepared by the parties and approved by the court. (Id., rule 8.137(a).) To enable us to consider the basis for the court’s ruling appellant should have provided a settled statement summarizing what occurred at the hearing. His failure to do so is fatal to his appeal. (Jameson, supra, 5 Cal.5th at pp. 608-609.)

That appellant is representing himself on appeal makes no difference. A party acting in propria persona is not entitled to “special treatment” (Stebley v. Litton Loan Servicing, LLP (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 522, 524) but is held to the same standards as a party represented by counsel (Kobayashi v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 536, 543).

We also deny as untimely and irrelevant appellant’s request for judicial notice of a reporter’s transcript of a February 2018 hearing in the Superior Court of Riverside case, Lopez v. Lopez (Super. Ct. Riv. County, No. RIV1800123). The request was filed only two days before oral argument. Appellant knew of this transcript 15 months ago, filed his brief nine months ago, and was given notice of the date of oral argument one month ago. He cannot wait until the last minute to file a request. Further, comments by the judge in the hearing in the other matter are not relevant to this action.

The order is affirmed. Because respondent did not appear no costs are awarded.

THOMPSON, J.

WE CONCUR:

MOORE, ACTING P. J.

FYBEL, J.