Filed 7/23/26 Conservatorship of C.W. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
(Yolo)
Conservatorship of the Person and Estate of C.W. C103696
LORETTA MARTIN, (Super. Ct. No. PR2024-0169)
Petitioner and Appellant,
v.
RICHARD ALLEN MILLS,
Objector and Respondent.
Loretta Martin appeals following an order appointing her conservator of the
person and estate of C.W. Martin prevailed at the contested conservatorship trial, but she
requests a modification of language in a minute order denying a hearing on a motion for
attorneys’ fees. Because we lack a sufficient record of the relevant trial court
proceedings, we will affirm the order without modification.
BACKGROUND
In February 2025, following a contested bench trial, the trial court granted
Martin’s conservatorship petition. No reporter’s transcript has been provided on appeal,
but the minute order from the day of trial reflects that the petition was granted after the
court received testimony and exhibits. The minute order concludes with a statement that
reads: “Motion Denied for attorney’s fees hearing. All parties to bear their own costs.”
1
Martin filed a timely notice of appeal. In designating the record on appeal, Martin
elected to proceed without a record of the oral proceedings.
DISCUSSION
“A judgment or order of a lower court is presumed to be correct on appeal, and all
intendments and presumptions are indulged in favor of its correctness.” (In re Marriage
of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133.) “ ‘ “[I]f 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].’ ” (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th
594, 609.)
In this appeal, Martin requests a modification of the minute order’s language
regarding costs and attorneys’ fees. She contends that the above-quoted language
denying a fees hearing and allocating costs can be read to improperly “preclude later fee-
shifting/sanctions procedures” that might be pursued in the conservatorship action; and
she requests that we modify that language to clarify that the denial of the attorneys’ fees
hearing was without prejudice to a later, properly presented motion or petition for
attorneys’ fees or sanctions.
Martin does not contest the trial court’s decision to deny the apparent attorneys’
fees motion on the day of trial, instead assuming that the court was acting within its
discretion to reject a procedurally defective or premature request. She specifically does
not ask us to “reconstruct what was argued, what was requested orally, or why the
probate court denied any particular request on that day.” As Martin acknowledges, we
would be unable to find error in the trial court’s ruling on the apparent fees motion
because she has provided only a scant 31-page clerk’s transcript and no record of the oral
proceedings. (See Elena S. v. Kroutik (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 570, 574-575 [“where no
error appears on the face of a judgment roll record, all intendments and presumptions
2
must be in support of the judgment [citation] [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 … .” ’ ”]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.120(b) [to raise issue that
requires consideration of oral proceedings in trial court, record on appeal must include
reporter’s transcript, agreed statement, or settled statement].)
But the absence of an adequate record also leads us to decline her request that we
modify the minute order language regarding fees. On the present record, we cannot tell
what the trial court was being asked to rule on in the way of fees and costs or in what
manner and by whom the motion was brought. As a result, we have no way of discerning
the intent or scope of the minute order language. While we see no reason, in the abstract,
that language like that in the order would itself preclude a future request for fees or
sanctions, without any record of the relevant proceedings, we are left only to speculate on
its meaning in the context of the present case. We thus have no basis on which to revise
the order’s terms as requested.
DISPOSITION
The conservatorship order is affirmed. No costs are awarded to respondent as he
has not filed a brief in this appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(5).)
/s/
FEINBERG, J.
We concur:
/s/
EARL, P. J.
/s/
RENNER, J.
3