Beltz v. Brown
In this real estate dispute, respondent Ellin Beltz (Beltz) filed a complaint against appellant Justin Hobart Brown (Brown) for specific performance of a contract for sale of real property. Brown answered and filed a cross-complaint against Beltz alleging numerous causes of action, including one to recover the fair rental value of the real property which he claimed Beltz “wrongfully occupied.†Brown appeals from a judgment following a court trial in which the court declined to rule in favor of either party, and concluded that each party should bear his or her own attorney fees and costs.
On appeal, Brown makes numerous contentions, challenging both the trial court’s procedural and substantive rulings. We conclude Brown has waived his contentions on appeal because he has: (1) not provided an adequate record for us to review his contentions; (2) not provided required citations to the record on appeal in support of his assertions of fact and procedure; and (3) made insufficient substantive legal analysis in support of his contentions. Consequently we affirm the judgment.
Comments on Beltz v. Brown