Flate v. Nationstar Mortgage CA2/3 ( 2023 )

Filed 6/22/23 Flate v. Nationstar Mortgage 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
RONALD A. FLATE et al., B316668
Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BC715466)
v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC,
Defendant and Respondent.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Stephen Goorvitch, Judge. Affirmed.
Rodriguez Law Group and Patricia Rodriguez for Plaintiffs
and Appellants.
Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders, Justin D. Balser and
Katalina Baumann for Defendant and Respondent.
‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗
Plaintiffs and appellants Ronald A. Flate and Greta Flate
(the Flates) appeal from the trial court’s grant of summary
judgment in favor of defendant and respondent Nationstar
Mortgage, LLC (Nationstar). The Flates have forfeited their
arguments on appeal by failing to provide an adequate record.
We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
According to the superior court docket, in July 2018, the
Flates filed a complaint in this action. It is not clear from the
record who was named as a defendant or defendants. In January
2019, the Flates filed an amended complaint, naming Nationstar
and “Mr. Cooper” as defendants. Nationstar filed an answer in
June 2019.
In July 2021, Nationstar moved for summary judgment. In
September 2021, the Flates filed their opposition to summary
judgment and Nationstar filed its reply. That same month, the
trial court held a hearing on the motion, which it granted. The
trial court entered judgment in favor of Nationstar in October
2021.
The Flates timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
The Flates argue the trial court erred in dismissing their
claims for violation of Civil Code section 2924.11 and breach of
contract. According to their opening brief, these claims are
related to the Flates’ mortgage and their applications for a loan
modification. Nationstar contends the Flates have failed to
overcome the presumption that the trial court’s judgment is
correct because they have not provided an adequate record on
appeal. Nationstar further argues the Flates have waived their
2
claims on appeal by failing to properly cite to the record. We
agree and affirm the judgment.
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
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].’ ” (Jameson, at p. 609,
fn. omitted.)
In this case, the Flates challenge the trial court’s order
granting summary judgment. We review such orders de novo,
which means we must consider all of the admissible evidence
submitted by the parties in the trial court to determine whether
the trial court correctly concluded there were no triable issues of
material fact. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c); Hampton v.
County of San Diego (2015) 62 Cal.4th 340, 347.) The Flates have
not provided us with their complaint, Nationstar’s motion for
summary judgment, the Flates’ opposition to summary judgment,
Nationstar’s reply, any evidence submitted by either party in
support of or opposition to summary judgment, or the trial court’s
ruling. The record contains only the superior court’s “case
register” listing the documents filed below, the trial court’s one-
page judgment (without its memorandum of decision) and notice
of judgment, and the Flates’ notice of appeal. The Flates have
3
therefore failed to satisfy their burden of providing this court
with a record sufficient to permit meaningful review. This failure
is fatal to their appeal. (Jameson, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 609
[when a record is inadequate for meaningful review, the
appellant defaults and the trial court’s decision is affirmed]; Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 8.124(b)(1)(B) [an appellant’s appendix must
contain any document filed in the trial court “necessary for
proper consideration of the issues”].)1
1 We further note that the Flates’ failure to provide a
summary of significant facts or argument supported by citations
to the record allows us to deem such arguments waived. (People
ex rel. Strathmann v. Acacia Research Corp. (2012) 210
Cal.App.4th 487, 502–503; In re Marriage of Tharp (2010) 188
Cal.App.4th 1295, 1310, fn. 3.)
4
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Respondent to recover its costs
on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL
REPORTS.
ADAMS, J.
We concur:
EDMON, P. J.
LAVIN, J.
5