Barton v. Steadfast Management
Filed 1/30/07 Barton v. Steadfast Management CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE
HARRIET BARTON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STEADFAST MANAGEMENT et al., Defendants and Respondents. | B191014 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC323857) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Jane Johnson, Judge. Affirmed.
Harriet Barton, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP, Martin K. Deniston, Kym G. Bullock; Law Offices of Craig Hartsuyker and Nolan B. Henderson for Defendants and Respondents.
_____________________________
Plaintiff and appellant Harriet Barton appeals from the judgment entered following a jury verdict in favor of defendants and respondents Steadfast Management Company, Steadfast Lakeview Terrace LLP, Christian Hernandez, and Angelica Barba. Ms. Barton elected to proceed on appeal with an appellants appendix and a partial reporters transcript. The only reporters transcript designated for the appeal by Ms. Barton was for an in chambers hearing on April 14, 2006, in which the trial court ruled that prospective witness Dennard Reese would not be permitted to testify on behalf of Ms. Barton. Defendants have augmented the record on appeal with a transcript of an April 11, 2006 hearing on an in limine motion to preclude the testimony of Mr. Reese.
The parties were notified by this court that it appeared Ms. Bartons failure to designate the reporters transcript of the entire trial requires affirmance of the judgment based on the inadequacy of the record. The parties were directed to address the issue of the adequacy of the record in their briefs on appeal. Thereafter, Ms. Barton filed her opening brief, in which she argued the trial court committed reversible error by ruling that Mr. Reese would not be permitted to testify at trial. Ms. Bartons brief did not address the absence of a transcript of the entire trial, nor did she move to augment the record on appeal with the balance of the trial transcripts. Defendants brief argued, in part, that the judgment must be affirmed because the record was insufficient for appellate review.
Due to the absence of a complete record of the proceedings at trial, the judgment must be affirmed. No judgment shall be set aside based on rejection of evidence unless, after examination of the entire cause, including the evidence, the court is of the opinion the error resulted in a miscarriage of justice. (Cal. Const., art. VI, 13.) The law is settled that a party challenging a judgment has the burden of providing an adequate record to assess error. (Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295 -1296; Lincoln Fountain Villas Homeowners Assn. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Ins. Co. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 999, 1003, fn. 1; Interinsurance Exchange v. Collins (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1445, 1448; Heather Farms Homeowners Assn. v. Robinson (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1568, 1575.) Failure to present an adequate record on appeal precludes an adequate review and results in affirmance of the trial courts determination. (Estrada v. Ramirez (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 618, 620, fn. 1.) Error is never presumed on appeal. (Heather Farms Homeowners Assn. v. Robinson, supra, 21 Cal.App.4th at p. 1575; Interinsurance Exchange v. Collins, supra, 30 Cal.App.4th at p. 1448; People v. Fabricant (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 706, 711.)
Without a complete transcript of the trial, it cannot be determined whether the trial courts ruling to exclude the testimony of Mr. Reese was error, and if so, whether the error was prejudicial in light of the totality of the evidence. Applying the presumption that the judgment is correct and that there is no error without affirmative proof, we affirm the judgment.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Respondents are to recover their costs on appeal.
KRIEGLER, J.
We concur:
ARMSTRONG, Acting P. J.
MOSK, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line Lawyers.
