Domestic Partnership of Miller and
Brockman























Filed 9/6/12
Domestic Partnership of Miller and Brockman 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NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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

(Shasta)

----






>

In re the Domestic Partnership of ANN L. MILLER and DIANE BROCKMAN.
ANN L. MILLER, Respondent, v. DIANE BROCKMAN, Appellant.	C066417 (Super. Ct. No. 164890)

Diane Brockman
appeals from a judgment of dissolution
terminating the domestic partnership status of Brockman and Ann L. Miller,
dividing community property, and ordering spousal support. On appeal, Brockman contends the trial court
erred in failing to consider her Family Code section 2640 claims in
dividing the parties’ community property.
We affirm.

>DISCUSSION

Brockman has
elected to proceed on a clerk’s transcript.
(
ADDIN BA xc <@ru> xl 31 s WZLWBS000001 xpl 1 l "Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.121"
Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 8.121.) As a
result, there is no reporter’s transcript of the trial in this matter in the
appellate record. Therefore, we treat it
as an appeal on the judgment roll. ( ADDIN BA xc <@cs> xl 52 s
WZLWBS000002 xhfl Rep xpl 1 l "Allen v. Toten(1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1079" Allen v. Toten (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1079, 1082-1083 (>Allen); ADDIN BA xc <@cs> xl 57 s
WZLWBS000003 xhfl Rep xpl 1 l "Krueger v. Bank of America(1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 204" Krueger v. Bank of America (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 204,
207.)

The limited record
we have establishes that Brockman and Miller were registered domestic
partners whose partnership was dissolved on August 17, 2010.
Prior to the judgment of dissolution, there was a trial during which
Brockman and Miller litigated the issues of property division (including Family
Code section 2640 claims), spousal support, and attorney fees. Four witnesses, including Miller and
Brockman, testified at the trial. The
court took the matter under submission, and shortly thereafter issued its
tentative statement of decision.

Brockman objected
to the court’s tentative statement of decision, claiming that the trial court
failed to give her credit for her Family Code section 2640 reimbursement
claims. Miller objected to Brockman’s
objection as untimely. The court then
issued its final statement of decision on July 27, 2010.
The relevant portions of the final statement of decision were then
incorporated into the final judgment of dissolution, which was filed on August 18, 2010. Brockman appeals from the final
judgment.

On
appeal, we must adopt all inferences in favor of the judgment, unless the
record expressly contradicts them. (See ADDIN BA xc <@cs> xl 43 s
WZLWBS000005 xhfl Rep xpl 1 l "Brewer v. Simpson(1960) 53 Cal.2d 567" Brewer v. Simpson (1960) 53 Cal.2d 567, 583.)

It is the burden
of the party challenging a judgment to provide an adequate record to
assess claims of error. ( ADDIN BA xc <@cs> xl 50 s WZLWBS000006
xhfl Rep xpl 1 l "Ketchum v. Moses(2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122" Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1140-1141.) When an appeal is “on the judgment roll” ( ADDIN BA xc <@$cs> xl 54 s
WZLWBS000002 xhfl Rep xpl 1 Allen, supra, 172 Cal.App.3d
at pp. 1082-1083), we must conclusively presume evidence was presented
that is sufficient to support the court’s findings ( ADDIN BA xc <@cs> xl 47 s
WZLWBS000009 xhfl Rep xpl 1 l "Ehrler v. Ehrler(1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 147" Ehrler v. Ehrler (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 147, 154 (>Ehrler)). Our review is limited to determining whether
any error “appears on the face of the record.”
(
ADDIN BA xc <@cs> xl 78 s WZLWBS000010 xhfl Rep xpl 1 l ">National
Secretarial Service, Inc. v. Froehlich(1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 510" National Secretarial Service, Inc. v. Froehlich (1989)
210 Cal.App.3d 510, 521; ADDIN BA xc
<@ru> xl 31 s WZLWBS000011 xpl 1 l "Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.163" Cal. Rules of Court,
rule 8.163.)

These restrictive
rules of appellate procedure apply to Brockman even though she is representing
herself on appeal. (Leslie v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance (1991)
234 Cal.App.3d 117, 121; see also Nelson v. Gaunt (1981)
125 Cal.App.3d 623, 638-639; Wantuch v.
Davis (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 786, 795.)

Brockman contends
the trial court failed to properly consider her Family Code section 2640
claims when dividing the parties’ community property and failed to equally
distribute the parties’ community property.


Without a
reporter’s transcript of the trial in this matter, however, we must presume the
court made sufficient findings to support its decision. That is, we must presume the court equally
divided the parties’ community property pursuant to Family Code section 2550
and properly credited Brockman for her separate property contributions to the
community, if any. ( ADDIN BA xc <@$cs> xl 49 s
WZLWBS000009 xhfl Rep xpl 1 Ehrler, supra,
126 Cal.App.3d at p. 154.) On
the face of this record, we find nothing to suggest otherwise; we must affirm
the trial court’s decision.

>DISPOSITION

The order of the
trial court is affirmed. Costs are
awarded to Ann L. Miller. (Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1), (2).)








MURRAY , J.







We concur:







NICHOLSON , Acting P. J.







ROBIE , J.