Court Opinion

ID: 9639092
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 16:04:29.674515+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:34:07.667822
License: Public Domain

Filed 8/21/23 Marriage of Sieber CA6
                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

                                      SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

 In re the Marriage of ALBERT and                                    H050755
 MIROSLAVA SIEBER.                                                  (Santa Cruz County
                                                                     Super. Ct. No. 16FL01126)

 ALBERT SIEBER,

              Appellant,

              v.

 MIROSLAVA SIEBER,

              Respondent.
                                           MEMORANDUM OPINION1
          Albert Sieber, representing himself, appeals from a January 2023 order setting
spousal support arrears owed by him to respondent Miroslava Sieber.2 Because Albert
has not provided an adequate opening brief to enable meaningful appellate review, we
affirm.
          We are required to presume that the trial court’s order is correct. The appellant
bears the burden of affirmatively showing an error based on the record presented to the
trial court. (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 609 (Jameson).) A clerk’s

          1
          We resolve this case by memorandum opinion under California Standards of
Judicial Administration, section 8.1. (See People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847,
852-855.)
        2
          As the parties share a surname, we will refer to them by their first names for
clarity.
transcript, which is the method Albert elected to use to provide the record on appeal,
consists only of the documents designated by an appellant for the trial court clerk to
include in the record, and only of documents that were filed or lodged in the trial court at
the time the court issued the order being appealed. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.122;
Sahadi v. Scheaffer (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 704, 723.) The appellant’s opening brief
must provide a summary of significant facts limited to matters in the record, include
record citations in support of factual assertions, identify the relief sought, and explain
why the order appealed from is appealable. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C),
(a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(C).) The appellant must also include in the brief argument and legal
authority to support their contentions. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B).)
       Albert’s brief does not comply with these requirements. The opening brief
consists of unsupported factual assertions that do not cite the record on appeal. The
record itself does not include the documents we would need to review the support arrears
order. As designated by Albert, the record contains only a January 2023 findings and
order after hearing, Albert’s notice of appeal from that order, and Albert’s designation of
the record on appeal.3 He did not include any request for order or motion that initiated
the support proceedings, any response to that motion, or any evidence the trial court
considered in issuing the January 2023 order. Although Albert attached various
documents to his notice designating the record on appeal, the only attachment that we
might infer was before the trial court in issuing the order appealed from is the stipulation
and order filed September 5, 2017. To the extent he attached other documents to which
he refers in his appellate brief, there is nothing in the designated record confirming that
the documents were lodged or filed with the trial court when it issued the January 2023
order, so we would not consider them. (See Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc.
(1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 444, fn. 3 [in reviewing an order on appeal, the appellate court

       3
           Albert elected to proceed without a record of the relevant oral proceedings.

                                               2
generally considers only matters that were part of the record at the time the order was
issued].)
       Nor does Albert cite any legal authority in his brief, or otherwise provide reasoned
legal argument. Albert’s burden to demonstrate error on appeal “requires more than a
mere assertion that the judgment is wrong. ‘Issues do not have a life of their own: If
they are not raised or supported by argument or citation to authority, [they are] . . .
waived.’ [Citation.] It is not our place to construct theories or arguments to undermine
the judgment and defeat the presumption of correctness. When an appellant fails to raise
a point, or asserts it but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citations to
authority, we treat the point as waived. [Citation.]” (Benach v. County of Los Angeles
(2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 852, fn. omitted.) Given the deferential standard of review
this court must apply, the limitations in Albert’s brief make it impossible for us to
determine the nature of any alleged error in the trial court’s order.
       According to the January 2023 order, the trial court determined spousal support
arrears “based on the testimony of [Miroslava]. . . .”4 We review orders pertaining to
spousal support arrears under the abuse of discretion standard, and affirm the decision if
there is substantial evidence to support it. (See In re Marriage of Blazer (2009) 176
Cal.App.4th 1438, 1443; In re Marriage of Judd (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 515, 525.) Here
we are hampered because Albert has not identified in what way substantial evidence does
not support the trial court’s findings regarding spousal support arrears, or in what way the
trial court made a legal error. “ ‘It is incumbent upon appellants to state fully, with
transcript references, the evidence which is claimed to be insufficient to support the
findings.’ [Citation.]” (In re Marriage of Fink (1979) 25 Cal.3d 877, 887.) Without
citations to the record and reasoned legal argument, we cannot evaluate either the
sufficiency of the evidence, or whether the trial court abused its discretion in making the

       4
         The trial court also ordered the parties to “sell the home.” Albert does not
discuss this part of the order in his opening brief, and we will not address it on appeal.

                                              3
January 2023 order. As a result, we presume that the court’s order setting arrears was
correct. This presumption is “ ‘not only a general principle of appellate practice but an
ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’ ” (Jameson, supra, 5 Cal.5th
at p. 609, quoting Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.)
       We are mindful of the fact that Albert is self-represented, but this does not exempt
him from compliance with the general rules set forth above. We must treat a party who
acts as his own attorney like any other party and hold him to the rules of procedure.
(Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1247 [failure by self-represented litigant to
cite to record and support contentions with appropriate discussion waives claims of
insufficiency of the evidence].) Although we may exercise our discretion to construe a
self-represented litigant’s brief liberally in an effort to determine the nature of his
arguments, here Albert has not provided us with a brief that makes meaningful review
possible.
                                        DISPOSITION
       The January 6, 2023 order is affirmed. In the interests of justice, no costs are
awarded because Miroslava did not file a respondent’s brief. (Cal. Rules of Court,
rule 8.278(a)(5).)

                                               4
                                  _______________________________
                                   Greenwood, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

_______________________________
  Grover, J.

_______________________________
  Lie, J.

H050755
Sieber v. Sieber