Filed 6/17/26 Marriage of Haynes CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
In re the Marriage of DAVID and
TELETHA HAYNES.
DAVID HAYNES,
Respondent, A172672
v.
TELETHA HAYNES, (Solano County
Appellant. Super. Ct. No. FFL154019)
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
Teletha Haynes appeals the trial court’s findings and order after
hearing arising from a postjudgment hearing on the division of her
ex-husband’s California Public Employees’ Retirement System benefits.
We construe the notice of appeal to include the related qualified domestic
relations order, treat all of Teletha’s contentions as waived, and affirm both
orders for failures to provide an adequate record for review and supported
legal argument.
1 Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1; Ct. App., First Dist., Local Rules of Ct.,
rule 19.
1
BACKGROUND
In May 2023 the Solano Superior Court entered a judgment dissolving
David and Teletha Haynes’s nearly 28-year marriage.2 (In re Marriage of
Haynes (Mar. 17, 2026, A172255) [nonpub. opn.].)3 Besides dissolving the
marriage, the judgment apparently orders part of each party’s retirement
benefits, including David’s California Public Employees’ Retirement System
benefits, is subject to equal division of the community estate by the standard
mechanism: a qualified domestic relations order. (In re Marriage of Haynes,
supra, A172255.)
On December 9, 2024, the court held one of several hearings on David’s
request for order to enforce the judgment’s division of retirement benefits.
David had counsel; Teletha did not. David asked the court to enter his
proposed qualified domestic relations order as to his California Public
Employees’ Retirement System benefits (PERS QDRO) while Teletha
objected. Ultimately, the court granted David’s request over Teletha’s
objection and directed David’s counsel to prepare a written findings and order
after hearing (Order After Hearing), which she did. (See Cal. Rules of Court,
rules 5.125, 5.7(a), 1.31; Judicial Council Forms, form FL-340.) The court
filed the PERS QDRO on December 9; the Order After Hearing, on
December 11.
2 We use first names for ease of reference. (See In re Marriage of Smith
(1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 469, 475–476, fn. 1.)
3 We cite our prior opinions for background. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
8.1115(a), (b); The Utility Reform Network v. Public Utilities Com. (2014) 223
Cal.App.4th 945, 951, fn. 3.)
We take judicial notice of the record filed in appeal No. A172255, which
is the same as that filed in this appeal. (Evid. Code, §§ 459, subd. (a), 452,
subd. (d).)
2
Teletha appealed, still representing herself. The notice of appeal
identifies only one appealed order: “An order after judgment under Code of
Civil Procedure, § 904.1(a)(2),” entered on “12/11/2024” (i.e., the Order After
Hearing). The notice also includes six pages of attachments, including
Teletha’s explanation of what she is appealing and why, in part:
“This request is . . . to address this newly drafted PERS QDRO Model B
document,” which “does not align with the Dissolution Marriage
Judgement . . . .” (Sic., boldface and underscoring omitted.)
DISCUSSION
1. The notice of appeal is construed to include the PERS QDRO.
The Appellate Rules (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1 et seq.) mandate
liberal construction of a timely notice of appeal “ ‘ “to protect the right of
appeal if it is reasonably clear what [the] appellant was trying to appeal
from, and where the respondent could not possibly have been misled or
prejudiced.” ’ ” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.100(a)(2); K.J. v. Los Angeles
Unified School Dist. (2020) 8 Cal.5th 875, 882.) “[T]he liberal construction
requirement compels a reviewing court to evaluate whether the notice,
despite any technical defect, nonetheless served its basic function—to provide
notice of who is seeking review of what order or judgment—so as to properly
invoke appellate jurisdiction.” (K.J. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist.,
at p. 883.) This standard is met here. Though the notice identifies the Order
After Hearing as the only appealed order, the notice’s attachments convey an
intent also to appeal the PERS QDRO, which we construe the notice to
include. Nonetheless, we treat all of Teletha’s contentions as waived because
the record on appeal is inadequate to review either the Order After Hearing
or the PERS QDRO.
3
2. The appeal lacks both an adequate record for review and
supported legal argument.
A reviewing court generally presumes an appealed order is correct, and
it is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate the trial court committed
reversible error based on an adequate record. (In re Marriage of Arceneaux
(1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133; Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608–609
[“the record presented to the appellate court”].) To meet this burden, the
Appellate Rules obligate the appellant to support each contention in the
opening brief by argument under a separate heading with citations to legal
authority and facts in the record. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B),
(C).) If the record is inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant defaults
and the order is affirmed. (Jameson v. Desta, at p. 609.) In addition, the
absence of cogent argument or citations to authority or the record allows a
reviewing court to treat unsupported contentions as waived. (In re
Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 830; City of
Santa Maria v. Adam (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 266, 286–287.) These rules
apply equally to self-represented parties. (Tanguilig v. Valdez (2019) 36
Cal.App.5th 514, 520.)
“[The appellant’s] burden remains the same whether or not the
respondent files a brief or provides argument or authority on an issue.”
(Doe v. McLaughlin (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 640, 655; In re Marriage of
Rifkin & Carty (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1342, fn. 1 [the choice not to file
a respondent’s brief is not an admission of error].) David did not file a
respondent’s brief, and neither party requested oral argument. We therefore
decide the appeal on the record and Teletha’s opening brief. (Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 8.220(a)(2).)
In Teletha’s opening brief, the statement of the case summarizes,
“The QDRO PERS/FERS-TSP documents contradict the final Dissolution of
4
Marriage Judgement (DMJ) and includes [sic] benefit options that were never
discussed, negotiated, or agreed upon by the parties. . . .” Much of the
statement of facts and argument that follow lacks record citations or refers to
material that is not part of the record. Teletha’s argument is in substance:
She “did not receive full disclosure” of David’s California Public Employees’
Retirement System benefits; the PERS QDRO “does not align with the court-
ordered division of community interest in retirement account [sic]” in the
judgment; and she was denied the opportunity “to address, contest or
negotiate” her objections.
Critically, the judgment is not part of the record, precluding review of
whether the PERS QDRO is contradictory. (See Cosenza v. Kramer (1984)
152 Cal.App.3d 1100, 1102 [characterizing as “not cognizable” an argument
based partly on failure to plead when the record did not include the related
pleading].) Additionally, the record does not include a transcript of the
hearing on December 9, 2024, so to the extent Teletha’s arguments concern
what happened at the hearing, without a record of the oral proceedings we
must presume what happened at the hearing supports the appealed orders.
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.120(b); In re Marriage of Obrecht (2016) 245
Cal.App.4th 1, 8–9.) Further, we cannot consider Teletha’s many references
to alleged facts and documents that are not part of the record. (Protect Our
Water v. County of Merced (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 362, 364 [“if it is not in the
record, it did not happen”]; accord, Jameson v. Desta, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p.
609, fn. 11.) Teletha has “totally missed the appellate mark by failing to
provide an adequate record for review” of her challenge to the Order After
Hearing and the PERS QDRO. (Protect Our Water v. County of Merced, at p.
364.) Even if the record on appeal did include the judgment or a record of the
trial court’s oral proceedings, we would still treat the contentions in Teletha’s
5
opening brief as waived because her brief “[is] in dramatic noncompliance
with [the Appellate Rules].” (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229,
1246–1247; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a); In re Marriage of Falcone &
Fyke, supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 830; City of Santa Maria v. Adam, supra,
211 Cal.App.4th at pp. 286–287.)4
DISPOSITION
The Order After Hearing and the PERS QDRO are affirmed. David is
entitled to costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1), (2).)
Jackson, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
Burns, J.
Chou, J.
A172672/Haynes v. Haynes
4 We disregard Teletha’s requests concerning the orders on her own
retirement benefits, which we have already addressed. (In re Marriage of
Haynes, supra, A172255; In re Marriage of Haynes (Mar. 17, 2026, A173440)
[nonpub. opn.].)
And “ ‘we do not consider all of the loose and disparate arguments that
are not clearly set out in [the argument section of the opening brief under] a
heading and supported by reasoned legal argument.’ (Provost v. Regents of
University of California (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1289, 1294 [citation].)”
(Dinslage v. City and County of San Francisco (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 368, 377–
378, fn. 3.)
6