Randall v. Mousseau, 2 Cal. App. 5th 929 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). · Go Syfert
Search
Randall v. Mousseau, 2 Cal. App. 5th 929 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, 2019–2023 · …failure to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against appellant. at p. 935 ✓
76 citation events (76 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: O'Toole v. Haynes CA2/7 (calctapp, 2026-06-01)
Treatment trajectory · 2017 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2017 2021 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 25 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) O'Toole v. Haynes CA2/7
Cal. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
The DVPA permits alternative methods of service—such as service by mail or by publication—only where “the court determines that, after diligent effort, the petitioner has been unable to accomplish personal service, and that there is reason to believe that the restrained party is evading service.” (§ 6340, subd. (a)(2)(A).) A hearing on a request for a DVRO may be continued “on a showing of good cause” by either party or on the court’s own motion. (§ 245, subd. (b); see In re Marriage of Davila & Mejia, at p. 228; see also rule 3.1332(c) [“The court may grant a continuance onl…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Vu v. Manalac CA1/3
Cal. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
(Randall v. Mousseau (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 929, 935 [collecting cases].) Moreover, the appellant must support his claims of error with cogent legal argument and citation to legal authority as well as supporting references in the record.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Selby v. Stangl CA2/3
Cal. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
We deny the motion. “[M]andamus is the proper and exclusive remedy when a trial judge refuses to settle a statement which it is his duty to settle . . . .” (Murphy v. Stelling (1903) 138 Cal. 641 , 642– 643; Brode v. Goslin (1910) 158 Cal. 699, 701 ; Randall v. Mousseau (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 929, 936 [appellant forfeited challenge to denial of settled statement by failing to seek writ review or raise the denial in the opening brief on appeal].) Selby failed to seek writ review or raise her arguments regarding the proposed settled statement in her opening brief.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re M.F. CA3
Cal. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
(See, e.g., Randall v. Mousseau (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 929, 935 [“Appealed judgments and orders are presumed 14 also noted that when minor left his backpack with a gun in it at his friend’s house, he told others who were present that he shot a “dike bitch” and he demonstrated firing the gun by holding it at his waist, which contradicted his claim that he panicked, he thought “a bunch of dudes” were chasing him, and did not know he shot anyone.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Cervantes CA2/7
Cal. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
(See Randall v. Mousseau (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 929, 936 [new arguments raised for first time in supplemental brief are forfeited].) Although Cervantes’s August 29, 2022 motion in the superior court stated his attorney “had not been relieved as attorney of record and was not notified of the hearing,” he did not assert this as a basis to recall or set aside his sentence.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Marriage of Smith CA6
Cal. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
That discretion, however, is limited and must be exercised in a manner that does not interfere with the litigant’s statutory right to appeal. [Citations.]” (Randall v. Mousseau (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 929, 934 (Randall).) But assuming (without so concluding) that the trial court in this instance did not comply with rule 8.137(f)(4), the possible denial of the request for a settled statement is not properly before us on appeal.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cintron v. Lizarraga CA4/1
Cal. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
Without a record, either by transcript or settled statement, a reviewing court must make all presumptions in favor of the validity of the judgment.” (Randall v. Mousseau (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 929, 935 [cleaned up].) Because we are unable to fairly evaluate Lizarraga’s contentions in light of the inadequate record, we must affirm.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Valencia v. Mendoza
Cal. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
(See Randall v. Mousseau (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 929, 935 [“[f]ailure to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against appellant,” and “[w]ithout a record, either by 25 Because the Mendoza defendants did not submit evidence in their opposition to the petition to confirm and did not demonstrate good cause for relief from the 10-day deadline under section 1290.6, we, like the trial court, do not consider their untimely evidence in reviewing the award.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jacobs v. Ritchie CA2/7
Cal. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
Harris v. Shine (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 524, 533 [absence of a reporter’s transcript generally prevents review of a substantial evidence argument]; Estate of Fain (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 973, 992 [“[w]here no reporter’s transcript has been provided and no error is apparent on the face of the existing appellate record, the judgment must be conclusively presumed correct as to all evidentiary matters”]; see generally Jameson v. Desta, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 609 [“‘“if the record is inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the decision of the trial court should be aff…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) filed:
Cal. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
(See Randall v. Mousseau (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 929, 935 [“Failure to provide an adequate record on 19 an issue requires that the issue be resolved against appellant. [Citation.] Without a record, either by transcript or settled statement, a reviewing court must make all presumptions in 14 favor of the validity of the judgment”].) And, as discussed, far from being irrational (or nonsensical), the court’s reasoning and resulting ruling denying Harris’s motion to set aside were entirely proper.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Marriage of Dumov CA6
Cal. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
(See Randall v. Mousseau (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 929, 931, 933-934 [alternative to a reporter’s transcript is a settled statement]; Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.120(b) [appellant raising an issue that “requires consideration of the oral proceedings . . . must include a record of these oral proceedings”], 8.137 [parties may use a settled statement as the record of oral proceedings]; see also Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 [appellant bears burden to provide adequate appellate review of claims].)3 Although Khankin is correct that a reporter’s transcript is not required, “[w]her…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hepler v. Hagos CA2/7
Cal. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
(See generally Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 609 [“‘“if the record is inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the decision of the trial court should be affirmed”’”]; Randall v. Mousseau (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 929, 935 [“[f]ailure to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against appellant”].) The Hagos parties make no other substantive challenge to the trial court’s ruling.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jewelry Theatre Building v. Yeo CA2/7
Cal. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
(Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295-1296 [to overcome presumption on appeal that an appealed judgment or order is presumed correct, appellant must provide an adequate record demonstrating reversible error]; Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 [“[i]t is well settled, of course, that a party challenging a judgment has the burden of proving reversible error by an adequate record”]; Randall v. Mousseau (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 929, 935 [same].) We simply do not know what happened at trial (or in any pretrial motion practice).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) filed:
Cal. Ct. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
(See Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 609 [“‘“if the record is inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the decision of the trial court should be affirmed”’”]; Randall v. Mousseau (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 929, 935 [“[f]ailure to provide an adequate record 13 on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against appellant”].) Citing In re C.Q., supra, 219 Cal.App.4th 355 and In re N.L. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1460 , Aquendolyn argues the restraining order as to Aniya should be reversed, regardless of the other evidence before the juvenile court, because, a…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Conservatorship and Estate of Bell CA2/7
Cal. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
(Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281 , 1295- 1296 [to overcome presumption on appeal that an appealed judgment or order is presumed correct, appellant must provide an adequate record demonstrating reversible error]; Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 [“[i]t is well settled, of course, that a party challenging a judgment has the burden of proving reversible error by an adequate record”]; Randall v. Mousseau (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 929, 935 [same]; Lincoln Fountain Villas Homeowners Assn. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Ins.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fernandez v. Cal. Victim Compensation Board CA6
Cal. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
(See Randall v. Mousseau (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 929, 935-936 [appellant forfeited objections to settled statement by failing to raise issue in opening brief or seek writ review].) Appellant’s opening brief also fails to comply with the California Rules of Court in numerous respects, making our review even more challenging.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Calderon v. Koutsoukos CA2/7
Cal. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
(Randall v. Mousseau (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 929, 935 [“Failure to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against appellant.”].) Michael argues that he and Eleni are elderly and did not have counsel before filing their motion to vacate.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kaur v. Manlin CA2/7
Cal. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
(Randall v. Mousseau (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 929, 935 [“[A]ppellant has the burden of providing an adequate record.”].) And even if Manlin filed his motion over 60 days after service, the trial court did not err in allowing him to do so.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Beland v. Expedia CA3 (3×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Cal. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
(Randall v. Mousseau (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 929, 935 (Randall); Sidebotham v. Superior Court (1958) 161 Cal.App.2d 624, 628 (Sidebotham).) The Belands contend the trial court abused its discretion in striking their proposed settled statement because a trial court may not eliminate an appellant’s specification of the grounds of appeal from the proposed statement.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Mendez CA4/1
Cal. Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
(Randall v. Mousseau (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 929, 936 [new substantive arguments raised for first time in supplemental brief deemed forfeited].) We have reviewed the psychiatrist’s and psychologist’s confidential reports.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ortega v. Gonzalez CA2/7
Cal. Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
(See Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 609 [“‘“if the record is inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the decision of the trial court should be affirmed”’”]; Randall v. Mousseau (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 929, 935 [“[f]ailure to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against appellant”].) Munoz challenges the trial court’s finding he threatened Ortega’s immigration status, contending Ortega at the hearing on April 22, 2019 testified his alleged threat to send her back to her country occurred during the July 13, 2018 …
cited Cited as authority (rule) Linton v. County of Contra Costa
Cal. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
(See Randall v. Mousseau (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 929, 935 [“Failure to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against appellant.”].) B.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cummings v. Dessel
Cal. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
(See, e.g., Randall v. Mousseau (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 929, 935 [“Failure to 18 provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against appellant”].) Accordingly, we cannot find the trial court abused its discretion.14 C.
discussed Cited "see" Nunn v. JPMorgan Chase Bank
Cal. Ct. App. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.137; see Randall v. Mousseau (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 929 , 933– 934.) In certifying the settled statement in this case, Judge Wood properly did not decide whether the parties made an oral agreement that was binding, but she did provide a factual account of the proceeding that is certain and undisputed, and that enables us to determine whether an oral agreement was made.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Marriage of Ndipagbor CA4/2
Cal. Ct. App. · 2025 · signal: see also · confidence low
However, this would not be beneficial as we conclude, post, the record is inadequate on appeal to review her claims. 4 of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’ [Citations.] ‘In the absence of a contrary showing in the record, all presumptions in favor of the trial court’s action will be made by the appellate court.’ ” (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608-609 .) “ ‘ “A necessary corollary to this rule is that if the record is inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the decision of the trial court sho…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
WENDY RANDALL, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
GEOFFREY MOUSSEAU, Defendant and Respondent
B263945.
California Court of Appeal.
Aug 24, 2016.
2 Cal. App. 5th 929
Counsel, Law Offices of Daniel B. Spitzer and Daniel B. Spitzer for Plaintiff and Appellant., Geoffrey Mousseau, in pro. per., for Defendant and Respondent.
Zelon, Perluss, Garnett.
Cited by 56 opinions  |  Published

Opinion

ZELON, J.

—Litigants in California may exercise their right to appeal without obtaining and transmitting to the Court of Appeal a verbatim transcript of the oral proceedings in the trial court. One alternative mechanism available to litigants is the settled statement, which requires the parties and the court to create an adequate, accurate record of the trial or ruling on appeal. When a proper motion is made, it is the obligation of the parties and the court to work together to prepare the settled statement. California law has long recognized this obligation: a trial court may not “deprive a litigant of his[*932] right of appeal by simply refusing to perform a plain duty.” (Sansome v. Myers (1889) 80 Cal. 483, 486 [22 P. 212].)

Appellant Wendy Randall appeals a judgment for defendant after a court trial. There was no court reporter during the trial, and the trial court denied Randall’s motion for a settled statement after trial. The trial court abused its discretion by denying Randall’s motion, and as a result, depriving her of her right to her appeal, but Randall failed to seek timely review of that denial. Because the issue has been forfeited, and because the record before us is insufficient to permit review of the judgment, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

Wendy Randall sued Geoffrey Mousseau for breach of contract and common counts on April 1, 2011. The parties tried the case to the court commencing on January 20, 2015; the court issued a minute order finding for the defendant on both counts on January 22, 2015, and entered judgment for the defendant on March 9, 2015. Randall moved for a new trial and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on March 18, 2015. The trial court heard and denied both motions on May 1, 2015.

Randall filed a motion for a settled statement (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.130, 8.137) on May 15, 2015, attaching a proposed settled statement. Mousseau objected, asserting that Randall was not entitled to use a settled statement when she had made the decision not to hire a court reporter for the trial and subsequent proceedings. Mousseau also filed objections to the contents of the proposed statement, but did not propose any amendments.

In a minute order dated August 14, 2015, the trial court denied the motion, stating: “The request places a burden on the other side who has to review the proposed settlement and provide their own version. The burden is placed on the court to conduct a settlement conference with the parties regarding the contents of the statement. Minute order contains ample information, there is no reason for a further settled statement.”

On appeal, Randall attempted in her briefing to supply the testimony at trial, but did not argue that the trial court had erred in denying her motion for a settled statement. Mousseau argued in response that the failure to provide a record on appeal requires this court to affirm the judgment. Mousseau is correct that we cannot reach the merits of this matter on the record before us because an appealed judgment is deemed correct; it is appellant’s burden to provide an adequate record demonstrating error. He is also correct that[*933] Randall has forfeited this issue. [1] Nonetheless, because many trial courts no longer provide court reporters in civil matters, and this issue is likely to recur, we address the procedure to be followed in these cases.

DISCUSSION

A. The Trial Court Has a Duty to Settle a Statement

California jurisprudence has long recognized the availability of a settled statement of proceedings at the trial court as a viable alternative to a reporter’s transcript on appeal. Although the procedure is now set out in the Rules of Court, the Supreme Court specified the duty of a trial court to settle a statement at the request of a litigant as early as 1889. In Sansome v. Myers, supra, 80 Cal. 483, 486, the Court declared that a trial court has the obligation to settle a statement, an obligation with which it could not simply fail to comply, explaining: ‘“[t]o so hold would place it in the power of the trial judge to deprive a litigant of his right of appeal by simply refusing to perform a plain duty.” (See also Western States Const. Co. v. Municipal Ct. (1951) 38 Cal.2d 146, 151 [238 P.2d 562] [trial court has duty to settle proposed statement].)

The preparation of a settled statement to provide a record for appeal in civil matters is now governed by California Rules of Court, rules 8.130(h) [2] and 8.137. [3] The latter rule sets forth the requirements, and time deadlines, applicable to the request, and defines the role of the parties and the trial judge in preparing the record. To make such a motion, the party must demonstrate that ‘“[a] substantial cost saving will result and the statement can be settled without significantly burdening opposing parties or the court”; or ‘“[t]he designated oral proceedings were not reported or cannot be transcribed”; or that ”[t]he appellant is unable to pay for a reporter’s transcript and funds are not available from the Transcript Reimbursement Fund.” (Rule 8.137(a)(2).)

Over the course of recent years, a number of trial courts, including those in Los Angeles County, have ceased providing court reporters in many[*934] civil proceedings, leaving the litigants with the burden and expense of hiring a private court reporter, or relying on an alternative, such as a settled statement, to create a record for appeal. Rule 8.137 does not indicate a preference for one form of record over the other: the rule expressly permits a litigant, whether or not he or she can afford the cost of a privately retained reporter, to choose a settled statement. (See Los Angeles County Court Reporters Assn. v. Superior Court (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 403, 410 [37 Cal.Rptr.2d 341] [official reporter’s transcript not required for appeal; settled statement is authorized substitute].) [4] The trial court does retain discretion to refuse to settle a statement; it need not consent to a narrative that is inaccurate, but may insist that the statement reflects the actual proceedings. That discretion, however, is limited and must be exercised in a manner that does not interfere with the litigant’s statutory right to appeal. (Burns v. Brown (1946) 27 Cal.2d 631, 636 [166 P.2d 1]; see also St. George v. Superior Court (1949) 93 Cal.App.2d 815, 817 [209 P.2d 823] [trial court’s power over the record must not be exercised in an arbitrary manner]; Eisenberg v. Superior Court (1956) 142 Cal.App.2d 12, 18 [297 P.2d 803] [“full and plenary power over [the record] is reposed in the trial judge, subject only to the limitation that he does not act arbitrarily”].)

The trial court thus must have justification for the actions it takes with respect to the proposed statement. Where a trial court makes specific findings of deficiencies, which are supported by the record, it is not an abuse of discretion to refuse to settle the statement. Without such findings, the trial court does abuse its discretion. (Sidebotham v. Superior Court (1958) 161 Cal.App.2d 624, 627-628 [326 P.2d 890]; see also Keller v. Superior Court (1950) 100 Cal.App.2d 231, 236 [223 P.2d 309] {Keller) [under prior version of rule, it was an abuse of discretion for trial court to refuse to settle statement without specifying deficiencies; “The very purpose of [the rule] . . . is to permit the filing of a narrative statement ‘in lieu of a reporter’s transcript’ ”].)

Randall satisfied the requirement of the rule, because there was no court reporter in this matter. The trial court did not address this fact, but appeared instead to focus on an alternative ground, that there not be a “significant” burden on the opposing party or the court. The required showing is phrased in the disjunctive, however; the moving party need satisfy only one of the three requirements, not all of them. Even were that not the case, the trial court’s findings here mirrored the rule’s requirements that both the parties and the court participate in creating an accurate summary of the[*935] proceedings. While this does require an expenditure of time and effort, it is no more than the rule contemplates, and reflects the policy decision made to permit parties to appeal without the expense and burden of preparation of a reporter’s transcript.

The trial court failed to make any findings of deficiencies in the proposed settled statement, but instead found only that the preparation of such a statement would be a burden. That finding is not supported by any part of the record that is before this Court; the trial court did not explain why the preparation would be a burden of any kind, notwithstanding the rule’s requirement that such a disqualifying burden be a significant one. [5] The trial court abused its discretion in its ruling.

The failure to comply with the rule, and the resulting absence of a record, is more than significant to the appellant. Appealed judgments and orders are presumed correct, and error must be affirmatively shown. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 [86 Cal.Rptr. 65, 468 P.2d 193].) Consequently, appellant has the burden of providing an adequate record. (Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295 [240 Cal.Rptr. 872, 743 P.2d 932]; Jade Fashion & Co., Inc. v. Harkham Industries, Inc. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 635, 644 [177 Cal.Rptr.3d 184].) Failure to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against appellant. (Maria P., supra at pp. 1295-1296.) Without a record, either by transcript or settled statement, a reviewing court must make all presumptions in favor of the validity of the judgment. (Elena S. v. Kroutik (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 570 [202 Cal.Rptr.3d 318].) As has occurred here, appellant is effectively deprived of the right to appeal.

B. The Moving Party Must Challenge a Denial in a Timely Manner

The appellant must, however, take steps to protect her right to appeal. When the trial court denies a party’s motion for a settled statement, the rule requires appellant to “file a new notice designating the record on appeal under rule 8.121 within 10 days after the superior court clerk sends, or a party serves, the order of denial.” (Rule 8.137(a)(3).) To preserve the issue of[*936] the denial for appeal, the appellant may seek writ review at the time of the denial, or raise the denial in the opening brief on appeal. (See Western States Const. Co., supra, 38 Cal.2d 146; Keller, supra, 100 Cal.App.2d 231.) In this case, appellant took none of these steps.

Here, while appellant detailed her request for a settled statement, and the trial court’s denial, she did not contend that the trial court erred in denying her motion. Instead, she asserted in the opening brief, and in the reply, that the record was adequate to permit review by this court. It was not until the supplemental briefing that Randall argued that the trial court erred in denying her motion, and that remand was appropriate. This assertion is untimely; Randall had already forfeited the issue by failing to assert it either by petition for writ of mandate or in her opening brief.

Under these circumstances, we are compelled to affirm the judgment.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.

Perluss, P. J., and Garnett, J., * concurred.

A petition for a rehearing was denied September 16, 2016, and the opinion was modified to read as printed above.

1

We requested supplemental briefing on this issue from the parties. Randall argued for the first time that remand for preparation of a settled statement would be appropriate, but also asserted that the record was adequate for review. Mousseau reiterated his argument that no settled statement should be available when a party chooses to forgo hiring a court reporter, and argued as well that Randall’s request was too late.

2

California Rules of Court, rule 8.130(h) applies where there is a reporter’s transcript for a proceeding, but a portion cannot be transcribed. It permits the use of a settled statement in those circumstances, but does not limit California Rules of Court, rule 8.137: “[t]his remedy supplements any other available remedies.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.130(h)(3).)

3

All further references to rules are to the California Rules of Court.

4

Respondent argued at the trial court, and at this court, that appellant’s decision not to hire a court reporter deprived her of the right to seek a settled statement for her appeal. That assertion was made without citation to any authority, and, as demonstrated in the text, was not only erroneous, but also frivolous.

5

The trial court also indicated its belief that the minute order it issued was sufficient. That minute order did not provide a condensed narrative of the proceedings, but merely described the court’s conclusions after hearing the evidence. The court acknowledged it had weighed conflicting evidence: “The Court finds even though defendant is a Felon his explanation carries equal evidentiary weight as the Plaintiff’s claim. The Court observed the demeanor of all witnesses while testifying.” This court cannot determine the sufficiency of that disputed evidence to support the judgment without the required narrative.

The impact of the failure to permit such a narrative to be prepared is further demonstrated by the court’s minute order denying the motion for a new trial, where the court stated that its conclusions were supported by the evidence at trial. This court is left unaware of that evidence. Appellant has not identified any error in the denial of that motion other than the issues raised with respect to the judgment. As set forth above, the record is insufficient to resolve those claims.