Estate of Siegel






Filed 12/15/10 Estate of Siegel CA2/1





NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

Estate of JACK WENDELL SIEGEL and CAROLINE CATHERINE SIEGEL, Deceased.	B208966, B208970 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. BP109598, BP109599)
GEORGE ROGER SIEGEL, Petitioner and Appellant, v. JACK ROBERT SIEGEL, Objector and Respondent.

APPEALS from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Aviva K. Bobb, Judge. Appeals dismissed.
George Roger Siegel, in pro. per., for Petitioner and Appellant.
Law Offices of Geordan Goebal and Geordan Goebal for Objector and Respondent.

——————————

This ongoing dispute between twin brothers, petitioner George Roger Siegel (Roger), and objector Jack Robert Siegel (Robert), involves several parcels of real property (the property) that were once part of their parents’ estate.^[1] Roger’s briefs fail to comply with the requirements of appellate procedure and the appeals lack substantive merit. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals on our own motion.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In January 2006, Robert received judgment vesting title in him to the property in LASC Case No. YC051420.^[2] Roger filed several appeals in that action, each of which was dismissed. The Supreme Court denied review. That judgment is final.
In March 2008, Roger filed the instant probate petitions, in an attempt to circumvent vesting of title to the property in Robert. Robert demurred. The trial court sustained the demurrers with leave to amend, provided Roger omitted the real properties from the petitions. Roger failed to amend, and the probate petitions were dismissed. Roger filed the instant appeals.
DISCUSSION
As a procedural matter, the appeal fails to comply with the requirements of appellate procedure. Roger’s opening briefs fail to identify the purportedly erroneous order from which he appeals, or to provide a statement of facts or a single citation to the record. It is the appellant’s duty to refer us to the portions of the record supporting his contentions on appeal. “When an appellant’s brief makes no reference to the pages of the record where a point can be found, [we] need not search through the record in an effort to discover the point purportedly made.” (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 406.) An appellant who fails to make such references in connection with points of error urged on appeal, may be treated as having forfeited those points. (Dietz v. Meisenheimer & Herron (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 771, 799.)^[3]
Second, Roger fails to support his bare assertions of error with a statement of facts, let alone reasoned argument or citations to appropriate legal authorities. As such, Roger has fallen far short of bearing his burden to overcome the presumption of correctness afforded the trial court’s rulings on appeal. It is a basic rule of appellate procedure that “[e]rror is never presumed, but must be affirmatively shown.” (Richard v. Richard (1954) 123 Cal.App.2d 900, 902.) This requirement applies equally to appellants acting without counsel. (McComber v. Wells (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 512, 522–523.) To that end, if an appellant fails to support an asserted point with reasoned analysis and citations to pertinent authority, the appellate court may treat the point as having been waived and pass on it without consideration. (People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 793; EnPalm, LLC v. Teitler (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 770, 775; People v. Doughtery (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 278, 282–283.) Roger’s briefs lack a cogent description of the action, and present no argument which relates to the facts. In short, the briefs contain nothing more than a random recital of grievances, unconnected to any comprehensible statement of facts. This court is unable to determine what Roger’s legal assertions are or what facts support those assertions. (Bernard v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1203, 1205.)
Moreover, to the extent we can surmise what Roger’s arguments might be, the appeal lacks substantive merit. The crux of the dispute between Roger and his brother relates to the real property once owned by their parents. Robert has had fee simple title to that property since January 2006, and Roger’s numerous appeals of that judgment have been unsuccessful. These probate actions may not be used to evade final judgment. (See Ricard v. Grobstein, Goldman, Stevenson, Siegel, LeVine & Mangel (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 157, 162 [plaintiff’s attempt to pursue second action solely to circumvent trial court’s prior adverse ruling is a sham and violates one final judgment rule].) This appeal lacks merit and must be dismissed.
In sum, an appeal, such as this, may be deemed to have been abandoned if the opening brief fails to raise a claim of reversible error and/or fails to articulate pertinent argument and present authorities on points raised. In In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, the Supreme Court held such an appeal may be dismissed on the court’s own motion: “A ‘reviewing court has inherent power, on motion or its own motion, to dismiss an appeal which it cannot or should not hear and determine.’ [Citation.] An appealed-from judgment or order is presumed correct. [Citation.] Hence, the appellant must make a challenge. In so doing, he must raise claims of reversible error or other defect [citation], and ‘present argument and authority on each point made’ [citations]. If he does not, he may, in the court's discretion, be deemed to have abandoned his appeal. [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 994; County of Kern v. Dillier (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1424–1425.) Dismissal is the appropriate result here. With no error or other defect claimed against the unspecified orders appealed from, we are presented with no reason to proceed to the merits of Roger’s unraised “points,” and no reason to reverse the orders in question. The appeals are dismissed.^[4]
DISPOSITION
The appeals are dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

JOHNSON, J.

We concur:

ROTHSCHILD, Acting P. J.

CHANEY, J.

Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by San Diego County Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

---