Marriage of Lee and Gougher CA2/6 ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • Filed 8/16/22 Marriage of Lee and Gougher CA2/6
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 SIX
    In re Marriage of MARLIN                                 2d Civil No. B311508
    LEE and QUEEN ANN                                    (Super. Ct. No. 19FL02685)
    GOUGHER.                                               (Santa Barbara County)
    MARLIN LEE GOUGHER,
    Appellant,
    v.
    QUEEN ANN GOUGHER,
    Respondent.
    Proceeding in propria persona, Marlin Lee Gougher
    (husband) appeals from the judgment dissolving his nine-year
    marriage to Queen Ann Gougher (wife). Judgment was entered
    following a court trial conducted via Zoom. Wife was represented
    by counsel; husband represented himself. The family court
    divided the parties’ property and ordered that husband make an
    equalizing payment to wife of $659.47. Although husband
    requested monthly spousal support of $1,000, the family court did
    not order spousal support. We affirm.
    The Court Trial
    The family court’s minutes state: “[Husband] testifies on
    his own behalf. He is currently incarcerated in a federal prison
    and requests that he be appointed counsel. The court explains
    that attorneys are not appointed in a civil dissolution action. He
    represents that he needs certain documents.”
    Husband’s Contentions on Appeal Are Forfeited
    Husband submitted an opening brief that he had prepared
    while in prison. Wife did not file a brief. Husband contends that
    the family court committed “prejudicial error” by refusing to
    grant his pretrial request for a continuance. He asserts that the
    court “forced me to continue without an attorney” and without
    “discovery, that only an attorney could have obtained as I did not
    [ha]ve any outside help . . . .”
    In addition, husband claims that the family court judge
    “err[]ed in not changing the separation date when I told him that
    I erred when I filled in the date, . . . which would have cha[n]ged
    all the computations and would have effected [sic] the outcome of
    the financial award and spousal support.”
    The family court’s minutes do not show that husband
    requested a continuance of the trial or a change in the parties’
    separation date. There is no reporter’s transcript, settled
    statement, or agreed statement. The record, therefore, is
    inadequate to support husband’s claims of error. “It is well
    settled . . . that a party challenging a judgment has the burden of
    showing reversible error by an adequate record. [Citations.]
    Because [husband] has failed to provide such a record, we have
    2
    no occasion to consider further the merits of his []appeal.”
    (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 
    41 Cal.3d 564
    , 574-575.)
    Moreover, husband’s claims of error are not supported by
    meaningful legal argument with citations to pertinent authority
    and facts in the record. “To demonstrate error, appellant must
    present meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to
    authority and citations to facts in the record that support the
    claim of error. [Citations.] When a point is asserted without
    argument and authority for the proposition, ‘it is deemed to be
    without foundation and requires no discussion by the reviewing
    court.’” (In re S.C. (2006) 
    138 Cal.App.4th 396
    , 408; see also
    Fernandes v. Singh (2017) 
    16 Cal.App.5th 932
    , 942-943 [“a brief
    must contain ‘“meaningful legal analysis supported by citations
    to authority and citations to facts in the record that support the
    claim of error”’ . . . or else we will deem all points ‘to be forfeited
    as unsupported by “adequate factual or legal analysis”’”].)
    “[Husband] is not exempt from the foregoing rules because
    he is representing himself on appeal in propria persona. Under
    the law, a party may choose to act as his or her own attorney.
    [Citations.] ‘[S]uch a party is to be treated like any other party
    and is entitled to the same, but no greater consideration than
    other litigants and attorneys. [Citation.]’ [Citations.] Thus, as is
    the case with attorneys, pro. per. litigants must follow correct
    rules of procedure. [Citations.]” (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 
    122 Cal.App.4th 1229
    , 1246-1247.)
    Disposition
    The judgment is affirmed. The parties shall bear their own
    costs on appeal.
    3
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
    YEGAN, J.
    We concur:
    GILBERT, P. J.
    PERREN, J.*
    *Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District,
    assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California
    Constitution.
    4
    Jed Beebe, Judge
    Superior Court County of Santa Barbara
    ______________________________
    Marlin Lee Gougher, in propria persona, for Appellant.
    No appearance by Respondent.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: B311508

Filed Date: 8/16/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/16/2022