1

Filed 2/11/16 Marriage of Kraus CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 FOUR

In re the Marriage of JEROME PETER 

KRAUS and BETTY LOU KRAUS.

JEROME PETER KRAUS,

Appellant,

v.

BETTY LOU KRAUS,

Respondent.

 A143940

 (Sonoma County

 Super. Ct. No. SFL-51815)

Appellant Jerome Peter Kraus purports to appeal from a December 18, 2014 order 

denying his motion for a modification of spousal support filed in this family law 

dissolution matter. However, the notice of appeal, designated as a cross-appeal, purports 

to appeal from a judgment after an order granting a summary judgment motion.

Appellant’s brief (no reply brief has been filed by appellant after respondent filed 

her brief on appeal) presents a compilation of disjointed historical facts and claims which 

fail to comply with many fundamental rules of appellate procedure. Those deficiencies 

include the failure to: (1) present legal analysis and relevant supporting authority1for 

each point asserted, with appropriate citations to the record on appeal (Duarte v. Chino 

 

1

 Appellant cites no California case law supporting his appeal and three cases 

from foreign jurisdictions that do not bear directly on the issue he raises in this appeal: 

one from the Louisiana Court of Appeal, one from the South Carolina Supreme Court, 

and one from a New Jersey superior court. 
2

Community Hospital (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 849, 856); (2) support references to the 

record with a citation to the volume and page number in the record where the matter 

appears; and (3) state the nature of the action, the relief sought in the trial court, and to 

summarize the significant facts, but limited to matters in the record (Cal. Rules of Court, 

rule 8.204(a)(1)(C), (2)(A), (C)).

Appellant’s statement of facts is bereft of any citations to the record. In addition, 

he appears to have incorporated only his view of the facts. This one-sided presentation of 

the evidence violates another established rule of appellate practice: an appellant must 

fairly set forth all of the significant facts, not just those beneficial to him. (Foreman & 

Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 881.)

These are not mere technical requirements, but important rules of appellate 

procedure designed to alleviate the burden on the court by requiring litigants to present 

their cause systematically so that the court “may be advised, as they read, of the exact 

question under consideration, instead of being compelled to extricate it from the mass.” 

(Landa v. Steinberg (1932) 126 Cal.App. 324, 325.)

We note that appellant appears before us in propria persona. His unrepresented 

status in no way excuses the deficiencies in his brief. (Burnete v. La Casa Dana 

Apartments (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1262, 1267 [“ ‘ “[T]he in propria persona litigant is 

held to the same restrictive rules of procedure as an attorney” ’ ”].) Those representing 

themselves are afforded no additional leniency or immunity from the rules of appellate 

procedure simply because of their in propria persona status. (See Rappleyea v. Campbell

(1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984–985; see also Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 

1246–1247.) These deficiencies are a separate and independent basis for affirming the 

order denying appellant’s motion to modify spousal support.

It is well settled that a party challenging a judgment has the burden of showing 

reversible error by an adequate record. (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574; 

9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Appeal, § 628, p. 704.) “ ‘It is elementary and 

fundamental that on a clerk’s transcript appeal the appellate court must conclusively 

presume that the evidence is ample to sustain the findings, and that the only questions 
3

presented are as to the sufficiency of the pleadings and whether the findings support the 

judgment.’ [Citations.]” (Ehrler v. Ehrler (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 147, 154, see also Gee 

v. American Realty & Construction, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1416 [if record is 

inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the trial court's decision 

should be affirmed.]) In the absence of an adequate record here, we must presume that 

the court's judgment is correct. On the record before us, no error appears.

DISPOSITION

The order denying appellant’s motion to modify spousal support is affirmed.
4

_________________________

RUVOLO, P. J.

We concur:

_________________________

REARDON, J.

_________________________

RIVERA, J.

A143940, In re Marriage of Kraus