Court Opinion

ID: 9394279
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-12 21:02:18.581697+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:22.692330
License: Public Domain

Filed 5/12/23 Young v. Longstaff 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                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

 TIM YOUNG,                                                           H050172
                                                                     (Santa Cruz County
           Plaintiff and Respondent,                                  Super. Ct. No. 19-CV-03144)

           v.

 DEREK RAYMOND LONGSTAFF,

           Defendant and Appellant.

                                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
         We resolve this case by memorandum opinion under California Standards of
Judicial Administration, Title 8, Standard 8.1. (See also People v. Garcia (2002)
97 Cal.App.4th 847, 853–855.)
         Following a bench trial, the trial court found that appellant Derek Longstaff was in
breach of contract and entered a judgment against him. Longstaff, representing himself
here as he did in the trial court, appeals from that judgment. He contends the trial court
erred in finding that respondent Tim Young’s contract claim was not barred by the
applicable statute of limitations, and in finding that Young had standing to bring the
claim.
         We must affirm the judgment because Longstaff has not provided us with an
adequate appellate record. Trial court decisions are presumed correct, and the appealing
party has the burden to affirmatively show error. (Lennane v. Franchise Tax Bd. (1996)
51 Cal.App.4th 1180, 1189; Santa Clara County Environmental Health Assn. v. County
of Santa Clara (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 74, 83–84.) “It is the appellant’s responsibility to
include in the appellate record the portions of the reporter’s transcript relevant to the
appellant’s issues on appeal.” (In re Valerie A. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 987, 1002.) If
the appellant fails to do so, we will affirm the judgment based on the presumption of
correctness. (Stasz v. Eisenberg (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1032, 1039.) This principle
extends to an appellate record containing only the portions of the trial record on which an
appellant’s arguments are based, while ignoring or omitting other portions of the trial
record that may provide grounds for affirmance. (Osgood v. Landon (2005)
127 Cal.App.4th 425, 435, citing Uniroyal Chemical Co. v. American Vanguard Corp.
(1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 285, 302.)
       Here, Longstaff has included a clerk’s transcript in the appellate record but has not
included a reporter’s transcript or settled statement. The clerk’s transcript includes
Longstaff’s trial brief, in which he raised the issues he now attempts to present on appeal.
It also includes the statement of decision issued following the bench trial. But Longstaff
has not included the record of the trial itself, nor any other proceeding at which the trial
court may have addressed his arguments regarding standing and the statute of limitations.
The statement of decision suggests that the trial court considered and rejected those
arguments. It describes respondent Young as a co-trustee and remainderman of the trust
from which Longstaff received a loan, which is relevant to the question of whether
Young had standing. And it states that between 2011 and 2016, Longstaff “repeatedly
recognized that he owed the debt, both orally and in writing, and specifically promised to
pay it back.” That finding is relevant to the question of when the limitations period
began to run and was based on Young’s trial evidence, including the testimony of four
witnesses. The content of that testimony is absent from the record on appeal.
       Young has pointed out the record insufficiency in his respondent’s brief.
Longstaff has not filed a reply brief nor made any attempt to augment the record.

                                              2
Because we cannot determine any error based on the record provided to us, we must
presume that the trial court’s decisions were correct and affirm the judgment.

                                     DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed. Costs are awarded to respondent by operation of
California Rules of Court, rule 8.278, subdivision (a)(1).

                                             3
                               ____________________________________
                               Grover, J.

WE CONCUR:

____________________________
Greenwood, P. J.

____________________________
Lie, J.

H050172
Young v. Longstaff