Court Opinion

ID: 9370110
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-10 20:02:37.420628+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:19.488625
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/10/23 Marriage of Camacho and Cordova CA2/8
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

 In re the Marriage of MARIA                                      B312584
 LUISA CAMACHO and
 FRANCISCO ANTONIO                                                Los Angeles County
 CORDOVA.                                                         Super. Ct. No. BD 460321

 MARIA LUISA CAMACHO,

           Respondent,

           v.

 FRANCISCO ANTONIO
 CORDOVA,

           Appellant.

     APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Anne K. Richardson, Judge. Affirmed.
     Francisco Antonio Cordova, in pro. per., for Appellant.
     Distinguished Legal Group, Beatriz A. Pelayo-Garcia,
Michael Kang, and Suzel Gonzalez for Respondent.
                     ____________________
       Francisco Antonio Cordova appeals the family court’s
judgment in the dissolution of his marriage. Because his opening
brief is deficient, Cordova forfeits his appellate arguments. We
affirm.
       Maria Luisa Camacho petitioned for the dissolution of her
marriage to Cordova in February 2007. Cordova filed a request
for a nullity of marriage. The family court bifurcated the trial on
the validity of the marriage from the dissolution proceedings. In
the first phase of the trial, the Commissioner found there was a
valid marriage. Cordova appealed this ruling. The appeal was
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction to review the interlocutory
order. (In re Marriage of Camacho (Sep. 6, 2011, B217563)
[nonpub. opn.] pp. *2-3.)
       As the case proceeded to the second phase of trial, Cordova
did not comply with court discovery orders. The family court
struck Cordova’s responses and granted Camacho’s request for
default against Cordova in September 2017.
       The second phase of the trial took place over two days in
September and November 2019. Cordova did not appear. The
family court heard evidence and argument and issued a minute
order finding Cordova owed Camacho arrearages for child and
spousal support, awarding Camacho a one-half interest in
various properties and rental income, and ordering Cordova to
pay Camacho’s attorney’s fees.
       Cordova moved to set aside the judgment addressing the
division of one property covered by the order. The family court
denied the motion and entered a judgment of dissolution.
       Cordova now appeals this judgment.
       Cordova’s opening and only appellate brief to us is fatally
deficient. It contains a lengthy statement of factual assertions

                                 2
that largely lack citations to the record. Cordova concludes his
brief with the statement, “I hereby state and declare, under
penalty of perjury under the State of California[,] that all of the
foregoing is true and correct.” But an appellate brief is not an
affidavit. A California appellate court cannot take evidence in
the first instance and resolve factual conflicts. Cordova’s appeal
fails for this reason alone.
       So too is Cordova’s legal analysis inadequate. He asserts
he is “challenging every aspect of this Court’s judgment.” His 35-
page brief, however, cites only three legal authorities. Article VI,
section 13 of the California Constitution states no judgment shall
be set aside unless an error complained of resulted in a
miscarriage of justice. People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836
defined a “miscarriage of justice.” Cassim v. Allstate Ins. Co.
(2004) 33 Cal.4th 780, 801 applied Watson in an insurance
context.
       These legal authorities are general and do not establish
any particular legal error in this family law case.
       Cordova in effect seeks to enlist us as his lawyers, to
examine the case and to develop legal arguments for him from
scratch. Among other problems, however, adopting this practice
would be unfair to the other side. A court that accepted this
invitation and generated new arguments strictly for an
appellant’s advantage would leave the respondent without
effective notice of what the appeal was about in the first place.
For this and other reasons, Cordova’s proposal is unacceptable.
(E.g., Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B); Allen v. City of
Sacramento (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 41, 52.)
       We presume appealed judgments are correct. (Bullock v.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 655, 685.)

                                 3
Appellants bear the burden of proving error and prejudice.
(Widson v. International Harvester Co. (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 45,
53.) Appellants must offer cogent argument, citations to relevant
legal authorities, and accurate citations to pertinent portions of
the record. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B) & (C);
Tilbury Constructors, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (2006) 137
Cal.App.4th 466, 482.) Failure to do so forfeits appellants’
claims. (Regents of University of California v. Sheily (2004) 122
Cal.App.4th 824, 826, fn. 1.) This duty applies to self-represented
litigants. (See Barton v. New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc.
(1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1210.)
       Cordova has forfeited his claims on appeal through his
failure to comply with the fundamental principles of appellate
practice and procedure. (Okorie v. Los Angeles Unified School
Dist. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 574, 599-600.)
                          DISPOSITION
       We affirm the judgment and award costs to the respondent.

                                          WILEY, J.

We concur:

             GRIMES, Acting P. J.

             VIRAMONTES, J.

                                 4