Court Opinion

ID: 9890625
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-13 18:04:19.077503+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:39.802822
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/13/23 Marriage of Lin CA2/3
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

                                                              B318749

 In re Marriage of JIAN CHENG                                 (Los Angeles County
 LIN and GERRI LIN.                                           Super. Ct. Nos. BD569990,
                                                              KC065922)

 JIAN CHENG LIN,

           Respondent,

           v.

 GERRI LIN,

           Appellant.

     APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Christine Byrd, Judge. Affirmed.
     Gerri Lin, in pro. per., for Appellant.
     Jian Cheng Lin, in pro. per., for Respondent.

                             ‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗
       Gerri Lin appeals from a trial court judgment entered
following contested marital dissolution proceedings. Lin has
failed to demonstrate trial court error, therefore we affirm.
       FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
       In August 2012, Jian Cheng Lin filed a petition seeking
dissolution of his marriage to Gerri Lin.1 In October 2016, the
trial court entered a judgment as to status only, reserving
jurisdiction over remaining contested issues.
       In August 2021, the court presided over a trial on the
reserved issues and issued a judgment in December 2021. An
attachment to the trial court judgment summarized the
proceedings and detailed the court’s rulings. We quote from the
attachment at length:
       “Trial was held on the following issues . . . [¶] 1.5.1.
Identification, characterization, and division of community
property and debt; [¶] 1.5.2. Respondent’s request for spousal
Support; [¶] 1.5.3. Respondent’s claim of breach of fiduciary duty
against Petitioner; and [¶] 1.5.4. Respondent’s request for
attorney’s fees. . . . [¶] . . . [¶] 2.1. The court heard and
considered all testimony presented, all exhibits admitted into
evidence, and determined the credibility of each of the witnesses,
taking into consideration their demeanor and the other matters
identified in Evidence Code §§ [412], 413, 780, and related
sections. . . . [¶] 2.2. With respect to credibility, the Court found
Petitioner [Jian Cheng] to be a credible witness but found
Respondent [Gerri] not to be a credible witness.”
       The trial court listed several examples of the behavior that
led to the court’s credibility findings, including Gerri’s false

1     For clarity we refer to the parties by first names only for
the remainder of this opinion. No disrespect is intended.

                                  2
representations regarding the content of documents, her refusal
to follow the court’s orders regarding trial exhibits or to provide
copies of exhibits to Jian Cheng, her inability to establish the
authenticity of her digital exhibits, and her intentionally
disruptive and disrespectful conduct in court.
       The trial court made numerous findings distributing the
parties’ real property and other community property and debt.
The court further ordered equalization payments and, following a
detailed analysis, ordered Jian Cheng to pay spousal support to
Gerri. The court retained jurisdiction over spousal support as the
marriage was one of long duration.
       The court further addressed Gerri’s breach of fiduciary
duty claim: “3.5.1. [Gerri] claims that [Jian Cheng] engaged in
massive financial fraud and breaches of fiduciary duty during
marriage. [Gerri] claims, in essence, that [Jian Cheng] was
having an affair with one or more individuals at his medical
practice and used them to divert $150 million that should have
gone to the community estate and, instead, the funds were used
to purchase real estate in the names of the employees.
       “3.5.2. On April 7, 2013, [Gerri] filed a civil action, [case
No.] KC065922, against various individuals who, she claimed,
had benefitted from extramarital relationships with [Jian
Cheng], and also against their family members (hereinafter the
‘Defendants’). The case was deemed ‘related’ to the family law
dissolution and was assigned to this Court as a related matter.
       “3.5.3. In 2014, [Gerri] issued hundreds of subpoenas for
financial information on all the Defendants. On October 14,
2014, in connection with the granting of a motion to quash,
[Gerri] was prohibited from obtaining the issuance of any further
subpoenas without first obtaining leave of court.

                                 3
       “3.5.4. In 2016, [Gerri] filed a motion requesting the
authority to re-issue subpoenas to just five financial
institutions . . . . the motion was granted subject to a protective
order on the use and disclosure of the documents produced. [¶]
3.5.5. On May 8, 2018, the civil action was dismissed pursuant to
[Code of Civil Procedure] § 583.360 for failure to prosecute.
       “3.5.6. At trial, [Gerri] sought to present various documents
that she claimed had been obtained by subpoenas in the civil
action and that, she claimed, would demonstrate the diversion of
funds. The documents were in digital form only, were not
marked with exhibits numbers, had no sequential numbering of
pages, and had not been provided to [Jian Cheng] before trial. [¶]
3.5.7. According to [Gerri], she had received over 400,000 pages
of documents from the hundreds of subpoenas, which are in 110
boxes in her garage. Respondent had the documents digitized
and placed on a credit card sized unit that she calls a ‘2 Terabyte
USB Port.’ As discussed above, she never provided a copy of the
digital exhibits to [Jian Cheng], claiming that providing a copy
would allow him to alter the data.
       “3.5.8. [Gerri] sought to display the documents on a large
monitor in the courtroom but continued to refuse to provide any
copies to [Jian Cheng] or even to the clerk. The Court’s attempts
to state on the record what was being shown were met with
shouts and interruptions and even occasional insults. When
asked to provide affidavits from the custodian of records for the
subpoenaed records, [Gerri] provided them only for four
entities . . . .”
       Although at trial Gerri displayed 1099s related to medical
groups where Jian Cheng worked, the court concluded “[t]he
documents did not demonstrate any wrongdoing by [Jian

                                 4
Cheng].” The court noted that Gerri called Jian Cheng as a
witness, but she asked him almost no questions. Instead, Gerri
yelled, shouted, repeated her claims, and read from documents
displayed on a monitor in the courtroom.
       The court continued: “[Gerri’s] own testimony consisted of
argument and claims and complaints of unfairness instead of
substantive evidence. When she was instructed to show her best
piece of evidence to establish her claim, she provided none of the
digital bank records. Instead, she provided [Jian Cheng’s] tax
return for 2013 . . . claiming that it showed that he had profited
from selling a business, contrary to his testimony that the
business was unprofitable. The tax return did not show any such
sale.
       “3.5.14. Having considered all the evidence presented,
including credibility, and in the exercise of its discretion, the
Court finds that [Gerri’s] claim of breach of fiduciary [duty] has
not been established by a preponderance of the evidence and it is
denied.”
       The court denied Gerri’s request for attorney fees. Gerri
timely appealed from the judgment.
                            DISCUSSION
       It is a fundamental rule of appellate review that an
appealed judgment or order is presumed correct, and error must
be affirmatively shown. (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594,
609 (Jameson); Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557,
564.) “ ‘In the absence of a contrary showing in the record, all
presumptions in favor of the trial court’s action will be made by
the appellate court.’ ” (Jameson, at p. 609.) On appeal, “ ‘ “the
party asserting trial court error may not . . . rest on the bare
assertion of error but must present argument and legal authority

                                5
on each point raised.” ’ ” (Hernandez v. First Student, Inc. (2019)
37 Cal.App.5th 270, 277; Lee v. Kim (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 705,
721.) Accordingly, “[w]hen 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 forfeited.” (Delta
Stewardship Council Cases (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 1014, 1075
(Delta Stewardship).) These “same rules apply to a party
appearing in propria persona as to any other party.” (Flores v.
Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2014) 224
Cal.App.4th 199, 205 (Flores).)
       Gerri’s opening brief on appeal is 146 pages, consisting
mostly of lists and descriptions of exhibits, without accompanying
discussion or argument.2 To the extent there is any argument,
Gerri appears to re-assert her contention raised below that Jian
Cheng improperly hid or diverted assets and funds that should
have been included in the community estate. However, an appeal
reviews the correctness of a trial court judgment. It is not a
second opportunity to litigate the appellant’s allegations. (In re
Zeth S. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 396, 405.) Gerri fails to provide any
argument asserting the lower court erred in rejecting her claims
at trial.

2      In addition to submitting a clerk’s transcript and reporter’s
transcripts of proceedings between July 23, 2014, and September
20, 2021, Gerri also lodged with this court six volumes of
appendices and an external USB drive. The appendices and
external drive collectively contain over 1,000 “exhibits,”
additional copies of some of the reporter’s transcripts, various
briefs and minute orders, and several documents which are
clearly outside of the record, such as correspondence from the
Assistant Presiding Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court
responding to complaints Gerri filed.

                                 6
       The only other argument we can discern from Gerri’s
appellate briefing appears to be an assertion that an attorney
representing a third party improperly used the court’s “block
stamp,” and used a “false date stamp” in connection with
subpoenas Gerri served for bank records. No further explanation
or argument is provided in Gerri’s briefing. Her citations to the
record do not help explain the argument. For example, in
support of Gerri’s assertion that the attorney engaged in
unspecified “wrongdoing,” the court was complicit, and a
miscarriage of justice resulted, Gerri simply cites exhibits 1
through 75. (Myers v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc. (2009) 178
Cal.App.4th 735, 745 [appellate court cannot be expected to
search through voluminous record to discover evidence on point
raised when brief does not refer to pages where point can be
found in the record].) In the absence of any intelligible
discussion, Gerri’s assertions do not create a cognizable argument
on appeal.
       Moreover, the trial court considered, and rejected, at least
one of Gerri’s arguments regarding improper use of the court’s
“block stamp” at a September 2021 hearing on a third party’s
motion to enforce a judgment lien. The order granting a
judgment lien is not a subject of this appeal, however Gerri
appeared to raise the “block stamp” issue at the hearing,
asserting she owed nothing because the third party’s counsel
“acted as a judge himself by using the block stamp to sign these
documents.” The court responded that it had looked at the issue
of the block stamp and explained: “[The case file] reflects that the
judgment as corrected was filed on June 22nd, 2018. And it has
an original signature from me. There is a conformed copy of that
judgment. And the conformed copy shows the block stamp. [¶]

                                 7
That is the normal, traditional, correct procedure for court
documents which is that only the original has a signature and
that the conformed copy has the block stamp. [¶] The court is
aware of no reason why [this] case should be handled differently
than any other.” On appeal, Gerri neither acknowledges the trial
court’s explanation, nor asserts that the trial court erred in
rejecting her claim of “fraud or forger[y].”
       “It is not our place to construct theories or arguments to
undermine the judgment and defeat the presumption of
correctness.” (Delta Stewardship, supra, 48 Cal.App.5th at
p. 1075.) Merely stating allegations and listing pieces of evidence
without offering any reasoned argument is insufficient to create a
cognizable issue for appellate review. This court is not obligated
to “cull the record for the benefit of the appellant . . . . As with
any appeal from any judgment, it is the appellant’s responsibility
to affirmatively demonstrate error.” (Claudio v. Regents of the
University of California (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 224, 230; Dills v.
Redwoods Associates, Ltd. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 888, 890, fn. 1
[appellate court will not develop appellant’s arguments].) Gerri
has failed to demonstrate any error and has forfeited any points
raised by failing to support them with reasoned argument and
citations to authority. We therefore affirm the judgment.
(Flores, supra, 224 Cal.App.4th at p. 205.)

                                 8
                         DISPOSITION
      The judgment is affirmed. Respondent Jian Cheng Lin to
recover his costs on appeal.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL
REPORTS

                                       ADAMS, J.

We concur:

                LAVIN, Acting P. J.

                EGERTON, J.

                              9