Filed 1/23/09
Chase Bank USA v. Coltharp CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Placer) ---CHASE BANK USA, N.A., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL G. COLTHARP, Defendant and Appellant. C057834 (Super. Ct. No. SCV0020129)
In this pro se judgment roll appeal, appellant Michael G. Coltharp contends that, during the court trial of this matter, the court erred in allowing certain documents into evidence, and erred in finding that respondent Chase Bank USA, N.A. (the Bank) -- plaintiff in the underlying action -- had proved its case. Because Coltharp has failed to show the trial court erred, we shall affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND There is nothing in the record which explains the nature of the parties‟ dispute.
1
The limited record on appeal indicates only that the Bank initiated this action and there was a judicial arbitration, after which Coltharp requested trial de novo. A court trial was conducted on October 16, 2007; there was no court reporter present. After the trial, the court entered
judgment in the Bank‟s favor in the amount of $30,561.38, plus interest, costs, and attorney fees. DISCUSSION Coltharp appeals from the judgment entered after court trial. He has elected to proceed on a clerk‟s transcript. No reporter‟s transcript of
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.120.)
the trial in this contested matter, or of any other proceeding, appears in the record on appeal. I. Applicable Standards of Review On appeal, we must presume the trial court‟s judgment is correct. 564.) (See Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557,
In service of that rule, we adopt all intendments and
inferences to affirm the judgment or order unless the record expressly contradicts them. Cal.2d 567, 583.) It is the burden of the party challenging a judgment on appeal to provide an adequate record to assess error. v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1140-1141.) (Ketchum (See Brewer v. Simpson (1960) 53
Thus, an appellant
must not present just an analysis of the facts and legal authority on each point made; he or she must support arguments with appropriate citations to the material facts in the record. If an appellant fails to do so, the argument is forfeited. 2
(County of Solano v. Vallejo Redevelopment Agency (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1262, 1274 (County of Solano); Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 849, 856.) Coltharp is not exempt from the rules governing appeals because he is representing himself in propria persona. A party
representing himself is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater, consideration than other litigants and attorneys. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122
Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247; see Leslie v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 117, 121 [selfrepresented parties are held to the “the same „restrictive procedural rules as an attorney‟”].) Because Coltharp provides us with only a clerk‟s transcript -- and no transcript of the court trial -- we must treat this as an appeal on “the judgment roll,” to which the following rules apply: “„Error must be affirmatively shown by the record and
will not be presumed on appeal [citation]; the validity of the judgment on its face may be determined by looking only to the matters constituting part of the judgment roll [citation]; where no error appears on the face of a judgment roll record, all intendments and presumptions must be in support of the judgment [citations]; the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings is not open to consideration by a reviewing court [citation]; and any condition of facts consistent with the validity of the judgment will be presumed to have existed rather than one which would defeat it [citation].‟” (Ford v. State of
California (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 507, 514, overruled on other 3
grounds in Duran v. Duran (1983) 150 Cal.App.3d 176, 177-179; Allen v. Toten (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1079, 1082-1083; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.163.) In sum, our review of a judgment roll appeal is limited to determining whether any error “appears on the face of the record.” (National Secretarial Service, Inc. v. Froehlich
(1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 510, 521.) Finally, we note that no respondent‟s brief was filed by the Bank. In such a case, we examine the record and consider
the opening brief and oral argument, if any, to determine whether the trial court‟s ruling was prejudicial error. (See
Conness v. Satram (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 197, 200, fn. 3; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.220(a)(2).) II. Appellant Has Failed to Show Reversible Error Coltharp complains the trial court made evidentiary errors and entered judgment in the Bank‟s favor despite “insufficient evidence.” Specifically, according to Coltharp, the trial court
erred when it “failed to require [the Bank] to present a written, oral or implied contract;” failed to require the Bank to “provide statutes or case law disproving or challenging the statutes provided” by Coltharp; erred in allowing documents into evidence over Coltharp‟s hearsay objection and otherwise “allowed inadmissible evidence.” First, in his two-page brief on appeal, Coltharp fails to provide a single citation to the record. For that reason
4
alone, his arguments are forfeited. 75 Cal.App.4th at p. 1274.)
(County of Solano, supra,
Second, neither category of error are among those that can be said to “appear[] on the face of the record.” (National
Secretarial Service, Inc. v. Froehlich, supra, 210 Cal.App.3d 510, 521.) Lacking a reporter‟s transcript of the trial, we cannot evaluate Coltharp‟s claim the court allowed inadmissible evidence at trial. In fact, we presume on appeal that official
duties have been regularly performed (Evid. Code, § 664), and this presumption extends to the actions of trial judges (People v. Duran (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1448, 1461; Olivia v. Suglio (1956) 139 Cal.App.2d 7, 8-9 [“If the invalidity does not appear on the face of the record, it will be presumed that what ought to have been done was not only done but rightly done”]). means we must assume -- contrary to Coltharp‟s argument on appeal -- that the trial court properly admitted the evidence it considered in reaching its decision to enter judgment in the Bank‟s favor. Nor can we evaluate Coltharp‟s argument that the judgment is not supported by sufficient evidence. Because this is a This
judgment roll appeal, we presume that there was sufficient evidence before the trial court to support its finding that the Bank was entitled to recover a judgment from Coltharp in the sum of $30,561.38, plus interest, costs, and attorney
5
fees.
(Denham v. Superior Court, supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 564;
Ehrler v. Ehrler (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 147, 154.) DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
MORRISON
, J.
We concur:
NICHOLSON
, Acting P. J.
ROBIE
, J.
6