Filed 8/16/22 Marriage of Lee and Gougher CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for 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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

In re Marriage of MARLIN 

LEE and QUEEN ANN 

GOUGHER.

2d Civil No. B311508

(Super. Ct. No. 19FL02685)

(Santa Barbara County)

MARLIN LEE GOUGHER,

 Appellant,

v.

QUEEN ANN GOUGHER,

 Respondent.

Proceeding in propria persona, Marlin Lee Gougher 

(husband) appeals from the judgment dissolving his nine-year 

marriage to Queen Ann Gougher (wife). Judgment was entered 

following a court trial conducted via Zoom. Wife was represented 

by counsel; husband represented himself. The family court 

divided the parties’ property and ordered that husband make an 
2

equalizing payment to wife of $659.47. Although husband 

requested monthly spousal support of $1,000, the family court did 

not order spousal support. We affirm.

The Court Trial

The family court’s minutes state: “[Husband] testifies on 

his own behalf. He is currently incarcerated in a federal prison 

and requests that he be appointed counsel. The court explains 

that attorneys are not appointed in a civil dissolution action. He 

represents that he needs certain documents.” 

Husband’s Contentions on Appeal Are Forfeited

Husband submitted an opening brief that he had prepared 

while in prison. Wife did not file a brief. Husband contends that 

the family court committed “prejudicial error” by refusing to 

grant his pretrial request for a continuance. He asserts that the 

court “forced me to continue without an attorney” and without 

“discovery, that only an attorney could have obtained as I did not 

[ha]ve any outside help . . . .” 

In addition, husband claims that the family court judge 

“err[]ed in not changing the separation date when I told him that 

I erred when I filled in the date, . . . which would have cha[n]ged 

all the computations and would have effected [sic] the outcome of 

the financial award and spousal support.” 

The family court’s minutes do not show that husband 

requested a continuance of the trial or a change in the parties’ 

separation date. There is no reporter’s transcript, settled 

statement, or agreed statement. The record, therefore, is 

inadequate to support husband’s claims of error. “It is well 

settled . . . that a party challenging a judgment has the burden of 

showing reversible error by an adequate record. [Citations.] 

Because [husband] has failed to provide such a record, we have 
3

no occasion to consider further the merits of his []appeal.” 

(Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574-575.)

Moreover, husband’s claims of error are not supported by 

meaningful legal argument with citations to pertinent authority 

and facts in the record. “To demonstrate error, appellant must 

present meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to 

authority and citations to facts in the record that support the 

claim of error. [Citations.] When a point is asserted without 

argument and authority for the proposition, ‘it is deemed to be 

without foundation and requires no discussion by the reviewing 

court.’” (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408; see also 

Fernandes v. Singh (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 932, 942-943 [“a brief 

must contain ‘“meaningful legal analysis supported by citations 

to authority and citations to facts in the record that support the 

claim of error”’ . . . or else we will deem all points ‘to be forfeited

as unsupported by “adequate factual or legal analysis”’”].)

“[Husband] is not exempt from the foregoing rules because 

he is representing himself on appeal in propria persona. Under 

the law, a party may choose to act as his or her own attorney. 

[Citations.] ‘[S]uch a party is to be treated like any other party 

and is entitled to the same, but no greater consideration than 

other litigants and attorneys. [Citation.]’ [Citations.] Thus, as is 

the case with attorneys, pro. per. litigants must follow correct 

rules of procedure. [Citations.]” (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 

Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247.) 

Disposition

The judgment is affirmed. The parties shall bear their own 

costs on appeal.
4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

YEGAN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P. J.

PERREN, J.*

* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, 

assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California 

Constitution.
Jed Beebe, Judge

Superior Court County of Santa Barbara

______________________________

Marlin Lee Gougher, in propria persona, for Appellant.

No appearance by Respondent.