McCormick v. Woodle CA2/3 ( 2024 )

Filed 5/13/24 McCormick v. Woodle 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
MICHAEL McCORMICK, B322411
as Trustee, etc.,
Los Angeles County
Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 22SMCV00297
v.
JENNIFER WOODLE,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County. Helen Zukin, Judge. Affirmed.
The Sands Law Group and Thomas D. Sands for Defendant
and Appellant.
Dennis P. Block & Associates and Dennis P. Block for
Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________
Jennifer Woodle appealed after a court entered judgment
against her in an unlawful detainer case. Because Woodle failed
to provide an adequate record for review, we affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In March 2022, Michael McCormick, as trustee of the
Holly and Thomas Michael McCormick Trust, filed an unlawful
detainer complaint against Jennifer Woodle. Woodle did
not include the complaint in the record, so we do not know
specifically what it alleged. However, it appears Woodle was
renting property from McCormick, and McCormick sought unpaid
rent and possession of the property from Woodle.
The case proceeded to a non-jury trial in June 2022.
Woodle apparently represented herself. According to a minute
order, both sides presented testimony and documentary evidence.
The record on appeal does not include a reporter’s transcript
of the trial or a statement summarizing it. Nor does it include
any exhibits admitted at trial.
After the parties rested, the court ordered judgment for
McCormick. The court released the trial exhibits to the parties
and ordered they be retained pending final determination of
the action.
On June 9, 2022, Woodle filed an ex parte application for
stay of execution. The application is not in the record, so we
do not know what it contains.
On June 14, 2022, the court denied Woodle’s application
and entered judgment for McCormick. The judgment awarded
possession of the property to McCormick, cancelled the rental
agreement, and awarded McCormick $38,411.40 for past rent
due, holdover damages, attorney fees, and costs.
Woodle timely appealed.
2
DISCUSSION
As best we can tell, Woodle makes three arguments
on appeal: (1) the court’s damages award is not supported by
substantial evidence, (2) the court erred by refusing to admit
certain exhibits into evidence at trial, and (3) the court
erroneously denied Woodle’s ex parte application for a stay.
The most fundamental rule of appellate review is that
“judgments and orders are presumed correct, and error must be
affirmatively shown. [Citation.] Consequently, appellant has
the burden of providing an adequate record. [Citations.] Failure
to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue
be resolved against appellant. [Citation.] Without a record,
either by transcript or settled statement, a reviewing court must
make all presumptions in favor of the validity of the judgment.”
(Randall v. Mousseau (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 929, 935.)
Despite being represented by counsel on appeal, Woodle
has wholly failed to meet her burden to provide an adequate
record for review. As Woodle correctly notes, we review the
trial court’s factual findings—including its determination
of damages—for substantial evidence. (Bowers v. Bernards
(1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 870, 873–874.) To perform such a review,
we must examine all the evidence presented at trial. (Ibid.)
It is impossible for us to do so, however, because Woodle did
not provide us with a transcript of the trial or a statement
summarizing it. (See Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc.
(1999) 21 Cal.4th 121, 132 [without a reporter’s transcript of
the trial proceedings, the appellants had “no basis upon which
to argue that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to
support the trial court’s finding”].) Nor did she provide us with
the exhibits admitted at trial. Because the record is incomplete,
3
we must simply presume that, had Woodle provided an
adequate record of trial, it would have supported the trial
court’s determination. (See Construction Financial v. Perlite
Plastering Co. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 170, 179 [“If any matters
could have been presented to the court below which would have
supported its findings and judgment, it will be presumed that
such matters were presented.”].)
The same is true of Woodle’s contention the trial court
erred by refusing to admit her exhibits into evidence at trial.
We review a court’s exclusion of evidence for an abuse of
discretion. (Beebe v. Wonderful Pistachios & Almonds LLC
(2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 351, 378.) Here, however, we cannot
determine whether the trial court abused its discretion because
Woodle did not include in the record the exhibits the court
refused to admit. Nor did she include any documents that
reflect the trial court’s reasons for denying her requests. On
the record before us, it is simply impossible to determine whether
the court erred. Instead, we must presume the trial court had
valid reasons to refuse to admit Woodle’s exhibits into evidence.
Woodle similarly failed to provide an adequate record
related to her contention the court erred by denying her ex parte
application.1 Woodle did not include in the appellate record any
1 McCormick argues we lack jurisdiction to consider Woodle’s
arguments regarding the ex parte application because it is a
postjudgment order from which Woodle did not appeal. While
it is true a postjudgment order is appealable separate from
the judgment (see, e.g., Silver v. Pacific American Fish Co., Inc.
(2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 688, 693), it is not clear from the record
whether the court denied Woodle’s ex parte application after it
entered judgment. Therefore, we liberally construe Woodle’s
4
substantive documents relevant to the issue: she did not include
the application itself, McCormick’s opposition to the application,
a transcript or summary of the hearing on the application, or the
court’s order denying the application. Without those documents,
it is impossible for us meaningfully to consider Woodle’s
arguments or determine whether the court erred. Once again,
we must simply presume the court complied with the law
and had valid reasons to deny the application.
DISPOSITION
We affirm the judgment. Michael McCormick is awarded
his costs on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
EGERTON, J.
We concur:
EDMON, P. J.
ADAMS, J.
notice of appeal of the judgment to include the denial of her
ex parte application. (K.J. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist.
(2020) 8 Cal.5th 875, 882–883 [notices of appeal are to be
liberally construed to preserve the right to review].)
5