1

Filed 6/28/24 Williams v. Love CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

SHAWNY K. WILLIAMS, as Trustee, 

etc.,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

SHANDA LOVE et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

 A168790

 (City and County of San Francisco 

Super. Ct. No. CUD-23-671215)

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

In this unlawful detainer action, the trial court granted a 

motion for summary judgment—filed by Shawny K. Williams, as 

Trustee of the Williams Calderon Trust—and agreed that Shanda 

Love, Shannon Williams, and Mashama Nolan (collectively, 

appellants) could not show the existence of a triable issue of 

material fact after admitting (in discovery responses) the

allegations of the Trustee’s complaint. Accordingly, the trial 

court entered judgment—for possession of the premises, past due 

rent, and damages—in the Trustee’s favor. Appellants, who have 

been proceeding in propria persona at all relevant times, appeal 

1 We resolve this appeal by a memorandum opinion 

pursuant to California Standards of Judicial Administration, 

standard 8.1, and the First Appellate District Local Rules, rule 

19.
2

from that judgment,

2 contending that the trial court erred in 

granting summary judgment because there is a triable issue of 

material fact as to whether they agreed to pay the Trustee rent. 

(See Code Civ. Proc., § 1161, subd. (2).) We affirm because 

appellants wholly fail to meet their burden to demonstrate error.

It is well established that appellate courts must presume a

trial court’s judgment is correct and that errors must be 

affirmatively demonstrated on appeal. (Howard v. Thrifty Drug 

& Discount Stores (1995) 10 Cal.4th 424, 443; Denham v. 

Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) To do so, the appellant 

has the burden of providing a record adequate for the task of 

determining whether error occurred. (Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 

Cal.3d 1281, 1295; Hotels Nevada, LLC v. L.A. Pacific Center, Inc. 

(2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 336, 348.) Accordingly, because we must 

make all presumptions in favor of the validity of the judgment, 

failure to provide an adequate record means that the issue must

be resolved against the appellant. (Maria P., at pp. 1295-1296; 

Gee v. American Realty & Construction, Inc. (2002) 99 

Cal.App.4th 1412, 1416.) 

Here, although appellants suggest that the trial court erred 

in concluding there was no triable issue of material fact, the 

2 The notice of appeal indicates appellants appeal from a 

judgment entered after an order granting summary judgment but

does not include the date that judgment was entered. And the 

clerk’s transcript does not contain any judgment. However, the 

exhibits appellants filed in support of their petition for writ of 

supersedeas, which we previously denied, include a judgment 

dated October 13, 2023. Although appellants filed their notice of 

appeal after the court’s summary judgment ruling but before the 

entry of judgment, we treat their premature notice of appeal as 

having been timely filed after the judgment. (See Cal. Rules of 

Court, rule 8.104(d)(2); Johnson v. Alameda County Medical 

Center (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 521, 531 [“[a]n order granting 

summary judgment is not appealable—it is the later judgment 

that is appealable”].)
3

record—which appellants designated and made no effort to 

augment—contains little more than the trial court’s order 

granting summary judgment, the trial court’s order denying 

reconsideration of the same order, and the notice of appeal. 

Notably, the record does not contain the Trustee’s moving papers, 

appellants’ opposition to the summary judgment motion, or any 

declarations filed therewith. Thus, there is nothing in the record 

to support appellants’ assertions that they timely served verified 

responses to the Trustee’s requests for admission or that they 

otherwise denied the existence of an oral lease agreement. 

We are sympathetic to the fact that appellants are

representing themselves without the benefit of an attorney. But 

their status as self-represented litigants does not exempt them

from the rules of appellate procedure. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 

Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247.) On this record, we are compelled 

to presume that the trial court’s ruling in the Trustee’s favor was 

correct. (See Maria P. v. Riles, supra, 43 Cal.3d at pp. 1295-1296; 

Gee v. American Realty & Construction, Inc., supra, 99 

Cal.App.4th at p. 1416 [if the record is inadequate for meaningful 

review, “ ‘the appellant defaults and the decision of the trial court 

should be affirmed’ ”].)

DISPOSITION 

The judgment is affirmed. The Trustee is entitled to his 

costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 8.278(a)(1), (2).)

BURNS, J. 

WE CONCUR:

SIMONS, ACTING P. J.

CHOU, J.

Williams v. Love et al. (A168790)