Court Opinion

ID: 9698930
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 20:04:24.16184+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:30:07.004403
License: Public Domain

Filed 8/25/23 Sutton v. Clark 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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

 DAVID SUTTON,                                                       B322867

          Plaintiff and Appellant,                                   (Los Angeles County
                                                                     Super. Ct. No. 16STPB03303)
          v.

 GEORGE D. CLARK, as Trustee, etc.,

          Defendant and Respondent.

     APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Michael Small, Judge. Affirmed.
     David Sutton, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
     Law Office of Cecil R. McNab and Cecil R. McNab for
Defendant and Respondent.

                          ‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗
       David Sutton appeals from a trial court order denying his
trust petition filed pursuant to Probate Code section 17200
(section 17200 petition). Based on the limited record Sutton has
provided on appeal, it appears that Sutton failed to respond to
trustee George Clark’s special interrogatories requesting that
Sutton identify witnesses and documents relevant to the claims
raised in his petition. Clark accordingly filed a motion in limine
seeking to exclude witnesses or documents Sutton might present
at trial. The trial court granted the motion in limine, then denied
the trust petition. We affirm the trial court order.
       FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
       Our review in this case is severely constrained by the
limited record provided on appeal, which consists of a trial court
docket, a motion and supplemental motion in limine, a one-page
opposition to the motion in limine, two trial court orders, and the
notice of appeal and designation of the record on appeal. From
this record, we discern the following. In 2016, Sutton filed a
petition to determine the existence of a trust. In 2019, he filed a
subsequent petition for removal of trustee.
       In June 2021, the respondent and trustee, Clark, served a
set of special interrogatories on Sutton. The interrogatories
demanded that Sutton identify witnesses and documents
supporting the allegations in his petition. It appears from the
interrogatories that Sutton alleged, among other things, that
Clark improperly transferred trust property to himself; he
became trustee by defrauding the settlor; he wrongfully took or
disposed of trust assets; and he violated his duties as trustee.
       In April 2022, Clark filed a motion in limine asserting
Sutton willfully failed to respond to the interrogatories and
seeking an order prohibiting Sutton from “calling any witnesses

                                2
or presenting any document requested in the Special
Interrogatories.” The motion indicated Sutton refused to meet
and confer with Clark’s lawyer, and that Sutton’s failure to
respond to the interrogatories prevented Clark from conducting
any depositions or examining any evidence before trial.
       Sutton filed a one-page opposition to the motion stating:
“Pertinent documents for proving validity of trust violations need
to be allowed into evidence.”
       At a May 2022 proceeding, the trial court heard argument
and granted the motion in limine.1 In July 2022, the trial court
denied Sutton’s section 17200 petition with prejudice, finding
“insufficient evidence has been provided to grant the matter on
calendar.” Sutton timely appealed.2
                           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.) To overcome this

1     A minute order from the date of the hearing states the
court granted the motion “for the reasons stated on the record.”
The record on appeal does not include a reporter’s transcript from
the hearing, or an agreed upon or settled statement summarizing
the proceedings.
2     “ ‘[T]he Probate Code permits an appeal to be taken from
any final order under Probate Code section 17200 et seq. …’
[Citation.]” (Boys & Girls Club of Petaluma v. Walsh (2008) 169
Cal.App.4th 1049, 1057.)

                                3
presumption, the appellant has the burden of providing the
appellate court with an adequate record demonstrating error.
(Ibid.; Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295.) “ ‘Failure
to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue
be resolved against [the appellant].’ [Citation.]” (Jameson, at
p. 609.)
       It is also the appellant’s burden to provide reasoned
argument and citations to relevant legal authority to support
that argument. (Lee v. Kim (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 705, 721.)
“ ‘[O]n appeal “the party asserting trial court error may not ...
rest on the bare assertion of error but must present argument
and legal authority on each point raised. [Citation.]”
[Citation.]’ ” (Hernandez v. First Student, Inc. (2019) 37
Cal.App.5th 270, 277.) 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 Council Cases).)
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).)
       Here, Sutton argues the trial court abused its discretion in
dismissing his petition. He appears to contend that the court
should have excluded the evidence he failed to produce in
discovery, while still allowing him to proceed to trial. However,
the limited record indicates that the trial court took two separate
actions. First, the trial court granted the motion in limine, thus
excluding evidence that Sutton failed to provide in response to
the interrogatories. Second, the trial court concluded Sutton’s

                                 4
evidence, if any, was insufficient to establish the claims in his
petition.
       Sutton has failed to provide any reasoned argument to
support the claim that the trial court erred in denying the
section 17200 petition for insufficient evidence. Nor does he
argue that the trial court erred in granting the motion in limine.
“It is not our place to construct theories or arguments
to undermine the judgment and defeat the presumption of
correctness.” (Delta Stewardship Council Cases, supra, 48
Cal.App.5th at p. 1075.) Indeed, “ ‘[f]ailure of an appellant in a
civil action to articulate any pertinent or intelligible legal
argument in an opening brief may, in the discretion of the court,
be deemed an abandonment of the appeal justifying dismissal.’
[Citation.]” (Flores, supra, 224 Cal.App.4th at p. 205.) Sutton
contends the trial court order dismissing his petition was
prejudicial, but he has not offered a cognizable argument to
explain how the trial court abused its discretion in granting the
motion in limine or erred in dismissing the petition for
insufficient evidence. We must therefore affirm the trial court
order.

                                 5
                         DISPOSITION
      The trial court order is affirmed. Respondent to recover his
costs on appeal.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL
REPORTS

                                          ADAMS, J.

We concur:

                  EDMON, P. J.

                  EGERTON, J.

                                6