Marriage of Guglielmelli and Andreny CA2/3 ( 2024 )

Filed 10/2/24 Marriage of Guglielmelli and Andreny 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
In re Marriage of DINO B323549
GUGLIELMELLI and
MONICA ANDRENY. (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BD554019)
DINO GUGLIELMELLI,
Appellant,
v.
MONICA ANDRENY,
Respondent.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Mark A. Juhas, Judge. Affirmed.
Dino Guglielmelli, in pro. per.; Pensanti & Associates and
Louisa Belle Pensanti for Appellant.
Law Offices of Ronald M. Lebow and Ronald M. Lebow for
Respondent.
‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗
Appellant Dino Guglielmelli appeals the trial court’s
judgment and various trial court orders in this family law matter.
Guglielmelli contends he was denied discovery and his due
process rights were repeatedly violated during the proceedings
below, which spanned over a decade. Respondent Monica
Andreny, Guglielmelli’s former wife, contends the appeal is
frivolous because Guglielmelli failed to file an appellant’s
appendix or support his arguments with proper citations to a
record. We agree that Guglielmelli failed to provide an adequate
record to review his contentions and therefore affirm the
judgment. Although Andreny urges this court to impose
sanctions on Guglielmelli, she did not file a motion or supporting
declaration. Accordingly, we deny her request.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1
Guglielmelli and Andreny married in 2004 and had two
children together. They separated on November 2, 2011. In
October 2012, the parties entered into a stipulated order for
family support, pursuant to which Guglielmelli was obligated to
pay $55,000 a month in family support.
In December 2013, Guglielmelli was charged with
attempted murder and solicitation to commit murder. The record
indicates Andreny was the intended victim. In June 2014,
Guglielmelli pleaded no contest to attempted murder and was
sentenced to nine years in state prison. He was released in 2019.
1 In the absence of a clerk’s transcript or appellant’s
appendix, we take our facts exclusively from the respondent’s
appendix and reporter’s transcript.
2
Between 2014 and 2015, the parties, through their
attorneys, entered into various stipulations concerning the
disposition of property, custody and visitation, and the sale of the
family residence. Among other things, the parties agreed
Andreny would have sole physical and legal custody of the minor
children, Guglielmelli would have no visitation rights, and
Andreny could take certain actions to effectuate the sale of the
family residence. However, according to Andreny’s trial
testimony, the family residence was foreclosed on before she
could effectuate a sale.
In 2016, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on
Guglielmelli’s request for an order reducing family support, filed
in February 2013. In its August 30, 2016 ruling, the trial court
denied the request and concluded Guglielmelli was in arrears in
the amount of $1,223,000.
In July 2020, the trial court heard Guglielmelli’s request
for an order regarding child visitation. The court declined to
exercise jurisdiction over the children, who no longer lived in
California and had not seen Guglielmelli since his arrest, and
denied the request.
In June 2022, the trial court presided over a trial to
address Guglielmelli’s future child support obligations and his
claims of breach of fiduciary duty, waste, and fraud against
Andreny in connection with her handling of various properties.
Guglielmelli also requested that he be able to communicate with
the children. Based on the prior 2020 order, the trial court
concluded it lacked jurisdiction and could issue no orders
concerning child custody or visitation. The trial court determined
the amounts each party owed the community and found there
was “no evidence at all except speculation” to support
3
Guglielmelli’s claims of fiduciary duty, waste, and fraud against
Andreny.
Judgment was entered dissolving Guglielmelli and
Andreny’s marriage. Guglielmelli appealed the judgment and the
order dated August 30, 2016.
DISCUSSION
I. Guglielmelli Failed to Provide an Adequate Record
and Therefore Forfeits His Arguments on Appeal
Guglielmelli contends “[t]he trial court abused its discretion
and violated [his] due process rights for all contested issues of the
divorce at numerous times throughout the eleven-year
dissolution proceedings,” particularly during the period in which
he was incarcerated. Among other things, Guglielmelli contends
he did not receive proper notice of hearings, was denied the
opportunity to conduct discovery, and the court entered as orders
stipulations signed by his attorney without his knowledge and
consent.2 The record on appeal is insufficient for us to
meaningfully review these claims. We therefore affirm.
2 Although the 2016 support order is the only order
specifically identified in the notice of appeal, Guglielmelli’s brief
challenges numerous trial court orders. To the extent he
purports to challenge orders that were independently appealable
(see Alicia R. v. Timothy M. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1232, 1234,
fn. 1 [“award pendente lite of child support and attorney fees is
appealable independent of a final judgment”]), his challenges are
untimely and we lack jurisdiction to consider them. (See In re
Marriage of Padilla (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1212, 1216 [court
lacked jurisdiction to review denial of father’s first request to
reduce child support after he failed to appeal]; see also In re
Marriage of Gruen (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 627, 639 [trial court
exceeded its jurisdiction in retroactively modifying support order,
4
“[I]t is a fundamental principle of appellate procedure that
a trial court judgment is ordinarily presumed to be correct and
the burden is on an appellant to demonstrate, on the basis of the
record presented to the appellate court, that the trial court
committed an error that justifies reversal of the judgment.
[Citations.] ‘This is not only a general principle of appellate
practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of
reversible error.’ [Citations.] ‘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. “[I]f any
matters could have been presented to the court below which
would have authorized the order complained of, it will be
presumed that such matters were presented.” ’ [Citation.] ‘ “A
necessary corollary to this rule is that if the record is inadequate
for meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the decision of
the trial court should be affirmed.” ’ [Citation.] ‘Consequently,
[the appellant] has the burden of providing an adequate record.
[Citation.] Failure to provide an adequate record on an issue
requires that the issue be resolved against [the appellant].’
[Citation.]” (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608–609.)
Pursuant to the California Rules of Court, rule 8.120(a)(1),
“the record on an appeal in a civil case must contain . . .
[¶] . . . [¶] [a] record of the written documents from the superior
court proceedings” in one of several forms, including a clerk’s
transcript or appendix. Guglielmelli has provided no such record
in this appeal. In his designation of record form, Guglielmelli
indicated that he would file an appellant’s appendix under
which was “final and not subject to collateral attack” after
husband failed to appeal].)
5
California Rules of Court, rule 8.124.3 Although Guglielmelli
refers to exhibits to an appendix in his opening brief (the only
brief he timely submitted), no appendix appears in the record.
Instead, Guglielmelli includes a list of trial court documents at
the end of his brief with the heading “Appendix.” Guglielmelli
also cites exhibits to a “RR” and a “CR,” terms he does not define,
and to a “CT,” although he did not designate a clerk’s transcript.
No documents by these names appear in the record. Guglielmelli
has not provided a record of any of the trial court filings, minute
orders, or other documents from the proceedings below.
The California Rules of Court further provide that a brief
must “[s]upport any reference to a matter in the record by a
citation to the volume and page number of the record where the
matter appears.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C).) “ ‘It is
the duty of a party to support the arguments in its briefs by
appropriate reference to the record, which includes providing
exact page citations.’ [Citations.] If a party fails to support an
argument with the necessary citations to the record, that portion
of the brief may be stricken and the argument deemed to have
been waived.” (Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital (1999) 72
Cal.App.4th 849, 856.)
Even if an appellant’s appendix, clerk’s transcript, “RR,” or
“CR” were in the appellate record, almost every one of
3 Although Guglielmelli checked the box selecting an
appellant’s appendix in the form, he listed documents and
exhibits to be included in the clerk’s transcript, including
attachments. He also provided an attachment listing additional
proceedings for which reporter’s transcripts were requested, yet
failed to check the box indicating that he was providing
additional pages. His counsel made no attempt to augment the
record to include these materials.
6
Guglielmelli’s citations would be inadequate, as they make no
reference to volume or page number.4 Only a few exhibits are
described by title or date and may be identified in the
respondent’s appendix on that basis. The “RR” exhibits are
referred to by number only and, to the extent they were included
in the respondent’s appendix, are impossible to identify.
Guglielmelli also failed to timely submit a reply brief correlating
any record citations in his brief to the respondent’s appendix. In
Guglielmelli’s opening brief, several factual statements are
simply followed by the notation: “(Cite).” The entire argument
section is devoid of record citations. This provides an
independent basis to reject Guglielmelli’s contentions as
unfounded. (See Alki Partners, LP v. DB Fund Services, LLC
(2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 574, 590, fn. 8 [record citations in factual
background could not cure absence of citations in argument
portion of brief, as “courts will decline to consider any factual
assertion unsupported by record citation at the point where it is
asserted”].)
Although Guglielmelli purports to challenge numerous trial
court orders, the only reporter’s transcripts in the record are the
February 2013 hearing on a restraining order, the June 2022
trial, and a November 2022 motion for reconsideration filed by
Andreny after Guglielmelli filed his notice of appeal. His brief
contains no citations to a reporter’s transcript or “RT.” The “CT”
citations, which are described by date alone, appear to be
citations to the reporter’s transcript. Yet, the transcript for the
date cited is approximately 160 pages and Guglielmelli’s citations
4 There is a single reference to a “CT” that includes volume
and page number. In the absence of a clerk’s transcript, this
citation is of no assistance.
7
do not include page numbers. “ ‘ “[T]he reviewing court is not
required to make an independent, unassisted study of the record
in search of error or grounds to support the judgment.”
[Citations.] It is the duty of counsel to refer the reviewing court
to the portion of the record which supports appellant’s
contentions on appeal. [Citation.]’ ” (Centex Homes v. St. Paul
Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 789, 797.)
Without the relevant documents from the trial court
proceedings, reporter’s transcripts of relevant hearings, or
adequate citations to the few portions of the record we do have,
Guglielmelli’s contentions are entirely unsupported, and it is
impossible for us to meaningfully review his arguments.
Guglielmelli has forfeited his claims of error.
II. Andreny’s Request for Sanctions Is Denied
In her respondent’s brief, Andreny urges the court to
impose sanctions on Guglielmelli for his failure to provide an
adequate record and his misrepresentations of facts of the case.
Andreny failed to file a motion supported with a declaration
establishing the amount of any sanctions sought. (Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 8.276(b).) Her failure to comply with these procedural
requirements is reason alone to deny the request. (Saltonstall v.
City of Sacramento (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 837, 858; see also
Cowan v. Krayzman (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 907, 919 [“Sanctions
cannot be sought in the respondent’s brief”].)
8
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Andreny’s request for sanctions
is procedurally inadequate and is therefore denied. Andreny is
awarded her costs on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL
REPORTS
ADAMS, J.
We concur:
EGERTON, Acting P. J.
BERSHON, J.*
* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the
Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California
Constitution.
9