Filed 7/16/26 Romo v. Valadez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
IRENE ROMO, B346493
Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No.
v. 20STFL06227)
ABELINO ROMO VALADEZ,
Defendant and Respondent.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Nicole C. Bershon, Judge. Affirmed.
Irene Romo, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Law Offices of John M. Credell and John M. Credell, for
Defendant and Respondent.
‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗
Irene Romo appeals from a judgment on reserved issues in
a dissolution of marriage proceeding. Because Romo has not
established any basis for reversal, we affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
In 2020, Romo petitioned for dissolution of her marriage to
respondent Abelino Romo Valadez.
The trial court entered judgment as to the parties’ legal
status in March 2023. The matter proceeded to a bench trial on
reserved issues, and the trial court entered a minute order
reflecting its decision on January 14, 2025. As relevant to this
appeal, the court found insufficient evidence that Valadez could
increase spousal support payments, and denied Romo’s request
for an increase in such payments. The court found that a 2012
Chevrolet Suburban and a 2003 Chevrolet Tahoe “were returned
and are not charged against the community.” And it ordered
Valadez to provide Romo with a list of clients from his
landscaping business by February 14, 2025. The court directed
the parties to prepare a judgment for the court’s signature and
filing and set a February 26, 2025 order to show cause hearing
regarding entry of judgment.
On February 25, 2025, Romo filed a “declaration in lieu of
personal testimony . . . .” The declaration did not accompany any
motion or other request. On the final page of the declaration,
Romo requested that the court order equitable distribution of “the
gardening company,” a 2012 Chevrolet Suburban, a 2003
Chevrolet Tahoe, a 2003 Chevrolet Silverado, and a 2012 GMC
Sierra. The declaration also requested modification of spousal
support. It attached approximately 50 pages of documents,
including what Romo described as evidence of Valadez’s income
and car insurance records.
2
The court continued the order to show cause hearing
regarding entry of judgment, previously scheduled for February
26, 2025, to April 4, 2025.
On March 4, 2025, the trial court entered judgment on
reserved issues consistent with its January 14, 2025 order. Romo
timely appealed.1
DISCUSSION2
On appeal, Romo challenges the trial court’s January 14,
2025 order, which was incorporated into the March 4, 2025
judgment. Romo argues that the trial court abused its discretion
1 Valadez’s counsel served the March 4, 2025 notice of entry
of judgment on Romo. Ordinarily, when a party is served “with a
document entitled ‘Notice of Entry’ of judgment . . . accompanied
by proof of service,” this triggers a 60-day time to appeal. (Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 8.104(a)(1)(B).) The proof of service
accompanying the notice is dated January 31, 2025. That date
precedes the date of the judgment and is necessarily inaccurate.
Because the record does not establish that the 60-day time to
appeal was triggered, under rule 8.104(a)(1)(C), Romo was
required to file her notice of appeal within 180 days of the
judgment, or on or before September 1, 2025. (Cf. Thiara v.
Pacific Coast Khalsa Diwan Society (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 51, 58
[noncompliant service did not trigger 60-day time to appeal].)
The notice of appeal was therefore timely filed, on May 14, 2025.
2 We deny Romo’s motion to augment the record on appeal
with a document entitled “Judgment Obje[c]tions,” which she
filed in the trial court 16 days after the judgment was entered.
Romo does not reference this document in her appellate briefing
and fails to otherwise explain its significance. (Holland v. Jones
(2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 378, 382, fn. 1 [denying motion to
augment record with irrelevant materials].)
3
by declining to increase Valadez’s spousal support payments.
She also contends that the court’s determination that four
vehicles and one business were not community property is
unsupported by substantial evidence. We disagree and affirm.
“[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.”
(Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608–609 (Jameson).) An
appellant must also “provide adequate record citations” to
support any challenge to a trial court’s ruling. (Hernandez v.
First Student, Inc. (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 270, 277 (Hernandez);
Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 8.204(a)(1)(C) [same].) And “ ‘ “if the record
is inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant defaults and
the decision of the trial court should be affirmed.” ’ [Citation.]”
(Jameson, at p. 609.) “The same rules apply to a party appearing
in propria persona as to any other party.” (Flores v. Department
of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 199, 205.)
Romo’s opening brief did not cite even once to the record on
appeal, and she did not file a reply brief. “The appellate court is
not required to search the record on its own seeking error. If a
party fails to support an argument with the necessary citations to
the record, the argument will be deemed waived.” (LA
Investments, LLC v. Spix (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 1044, 1061 (LA
Investments); see also Hernandez, supra, 37 Cal.App.5th at p. 277
[appellant’s burden is to support arguments with record
citations]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C) [same].) Romo
therefore forfeited her arguments on appeal.
4
Even if we were inclined to search the appellate record on
Romo’s behalf, we would still reject her claims. Romo asserts
that the trial court abused its discretion by declining to increase
Valadez’s spousal support payments. (In re Marriage of Ciprari
(2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 83, 104 [“ ‘we review the trial court’s
(spousal support) modification decision for abuse of discretion’ ”].)
She specifically contends that the court ignored or minimized
evidence of Valadez’s income, Romo’s cancer history and financial
needs, and a “psychological declaration documenting abuse and
emotional harm.” Romo also asserts that a 2012 Chevrolet
Suburban, a 2003 Chevrolet Tahoe, a Chevrolet Silverado, and a
2012 GMC Sierra were acquired during marriage and are
community property, and that the court’s findings to the contrary
are unsupported by substantial evidence. Finally, Romo argues
that the court erred by failing to recognize a landscaping
business as community property.
Although Romo’s arguments are unsupported by citations
to the record, some of her contentions appear to reference
documents in the clerk’s transcript. For example, the record
includes a document that Romo described as Valadez’s “black
notebook . . . showing his income,” and records of Romo’s health
problems. It also contains insurance records indicating that
several vehicles were covered by automobile insurance for which
Valadez was the named insured. And the record includes several
checks made out to Valadez for gardening services. However, all
of these materials were attached to a declaration that Romo filed
six weeks after the January 14, 2025 bench trial.3 Our analysis
3 The declaration was filed alone, and not in conjunction with
any motion. (Cf. Code Civ. Proc., § 659, subd. (a)(1) [motion for
5
is limited to the “ ‘record of matters which were before the trial
court for its consideration.’ ” (In re Zeth S. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 396,
405.) Since the documents were not before the court when it
made the challenged ruling, we cannot consider them on appeal.
To the extent that Romo means to argue that the same
documents were submitted to the court during or before trial,
that the trial court erred by ignoring this post-trial evidence, or
that this court should consider the documents in the first
instance, we reject her contentions as forfeited because they are
unsupported by any legal authority or reasoned argument. (Delta
Stewardship Council Cases (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 1014, 1075.)
Even assuming that the trial court considered the evidence
attached to Romo’s post-trial declaration, we would nonetheless
conclude that Romo forfeited her arguments on appeal by
providing an inadequate appellate record. (Jameson, supra, 5
Cal.5th at p. 609.) The only documents included in the clerk’s
transcript are the January 14, 2025 minute order, Romo’s
February 25, 2025 declaration, the notice of appeal, and the
notice designating the record on appeal.4 The record does not
new trial may be filed “[a]fter the decision is rendered and before
the entry of judgment”].)
4 Romo designated a black notebook containing Valadez’s
income records and certain car insurance documents to be
included in the clerk’s transcript. The notice designating the
record on appeal specifies that any exhibits returned to a party
must be delivered by that party to the superior court in order to
be included in the record on appeal. The designated exhibits
were omitted from the clerk’s transcript, and Romo did not take
any steps to augment the appellate record to include them. (Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 8.155(a)(1)(A) [party may move to augment
record with documents filed below].)
6
include anything submitted to the trial court before or during
trial. For example, the clerk’s transcript establishes that Valadez
submitted a trial brief and exhibit list, and he also testified at
trial, but the appellate record does not contain any of Valadez’s
evidence. Because Romo failed to provide an adequate record, we
must presume that the trial court’s ruling is supported by the
evidence presented at trial. (LA Investments, supra, 75
Cal.App.5th at p. 1062; Ashby v. Ashby (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th
491, 513 [rejecting substantial evidence challenge as forfeited
where appellant failed to “set forth, discuss, and analyze both the
favorable and unfavorable evidence”].)
Finally, the record is also inadequate because Romo failed
to procure a reporter’s transcript of the bench trial or a settled
statement. “In many cases involving the substantial evidence or
abuse of discretion standard of review, however, a reporter’s
transcript or an agreed or settled statement of the proceedings
will be indispensible.” (Southern California Gas Co. v. Flannery
(2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 476, 483.) Without any record of what
occurred at trial, we cannot say that the trial court abused its
discretion, nor can we conclude that its findings were based on
insubstantial evidence.
7
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Respondent is awarded his costs
on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
HANASONO, J.
We concur:
ADAMS, Acting P. J.
KARNOW, J.*
* Retired Judge of the San Francisco Superior Court,
assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of
the California Constitution.
8