burden of showing reversible error in California

2026(See Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 [“[A] party challenging a judgment has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record”].) Jenny’s appeal is limited to the trial court’s ruling regarding the effect of her bigamous marriage on Patricia’s notices of levy.

2026(See Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 [“[A] party challenging a judgment has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record”].) Jenny’s appeal is limited to the trial court’s ruling regarding the effect of her bigamous marriage on Patricia’s notices of levy.

2025This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’” (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 ; see also Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 [declining to consider the merits of a cross- appeal where plaintiff failed to furnish an adequate record, stating, “It is well settled . . . that a party challenging a judgment has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record”].) Martens’s briefs—as distinguished from her notice of appeal—challenge a 2021 order appointing a guardian ad litem for

2024This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’” (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 ; see also Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 [declining to consider the merits of a cross-appeal where plaintiff failed to furnish an adequate record, stating, “It is well settled . . . that a party challenging a judgment has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record”].) In lieu of a clerk’s transcript, Andrea chose to proceed on appeal by way of an appellant’s appendix.

2025The matter was fully briefed in July 2025 and assigned to this panel in August 2025. 3 DISCUSSION I Appellate Rules of Procedure “It is well settled . . . that a party challenging a judgment has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record.” (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 .) “ ‘ “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 should be affirmed.” ’ ” (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 609 (Jameson) [failure to provide an adequate record on an issue require

2025However, 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 should be affirmed.

2026(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.220(a)(2), (c).) Husband “still bears the ‘affirmative burden to show error whether or not the respondent’s brief has been filed,’ and we ‘examine the record and reverse only if prejudicial error is found.’ ” (Smith v. Smith (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1074, 1078 .) “A judgment or order of a lower court is presumed to be correct on appeal, and all intendments and presumptions are indulged in favor of its correctness.” (In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133 .) The party challenging the judgment has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate r

2025DISCUSSION “A judgment or order of a lower court is presumed to be correct on appeal, and all intendments and presumptions are indulged in favor of its correctness.” (In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133 .) The party challenging the judgment has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record.

2022“All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support [the judgment] on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown.” (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 ; In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133 .) Therefore, a party challenging a judgment or an appealable order “has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record.” (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 .) “ ‘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

2022On appeal, we presume a judgment or order of a lower court is correct. “ ‘All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support [the order] on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown.’ ” (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 ; Conservatorship of Rand (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 835, 841 .) The appellant “has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record.” (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 .) “ ‘A necessary corollary to this rule is that if the record is inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant defaults and 3 the

2026We cannot assess whether there is sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s order without a record of the evidence that was presented below. “[A] party challenging a judgment [or order] has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record.” (Elena S. v. Kroutik (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 570, 574 .) “ ‘Failure to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against [appellant].’ ” (Foust v. San Jose Construction Co., Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 181, 187 .) Finally, A.Z. argues that the CHRO violated her First Amendment right to free speech.

2024The amount of punitive damages, if any, will be decided later.” 14 Construction Co., Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 181, 184-188 ; Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 121, 132 .) That is because “a party challenging a judgment has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record.” (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 .) And “ ‘[i]t is well established that a reviewing court starts with the presumption that the record contains evidence to sustain every finding of fact.’ ” (Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 881 (Foreman & Clark Corp).) Whe

2021This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’” (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 .) Thus, “a party challenging a judgment has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record.” (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 .) “Failure to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against [the appellant]. [Citation.]” (Hernandez v. California Hospital Medical Center (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 498, 502 ; Christie v. Kimball (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1407, 1412 [e

2020Sangster claims the trial erred in doing so. 3 “[A] party challenging a judgment has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record.” (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 .) “Failure to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against [the appellant]. [Citation.]” (Hernandez v. California Hospital Medical Center (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 498, 502 .) Here, Sangster has not provided an adequate record on appeal related to his fee waiver request.

2025(Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1140 (Ketchum).) Where the record is silent, “‘“error must be affirmatively shown.”’” (Ibid.) To overcome this presumption, “a party challenging a judgment has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record.” (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 ; see Ketchum, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 1141 .) Where the appellant fails to provide an adequate record of the challenged proceedings, we must presume that the appealed judgment or order is correct and, on that basis, affirm.

2025(Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1140 (Ketchum).) Where the record is silent, “‘“error must be affirmatively shown.”’” (Ibid.) To overcome this presumption, “a party challenging a judgment has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record.” (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 ; see Ketchum, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 1141 .) Where the appellant fails to provide an adequate record of the challenged proceedings, we must presume that the appealed judgment or order is correct and, on that basis, affirm.

2023(Ibid.; Estrada v. Ramirez (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 618, 620, fn. 1 [appellant’s failure to provide adequate record “precludes an adequate review and results in affirmance of the trial court’s determination”].) In any event, Brown bears the burden of showing that the court’s denial of her request for a continuance prejudiced her.

2023(Estrada v. Ramirez (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 618, 620, fn. 1 [appellant’s failure to provide adequate record “precludes an adequate review and results in affirmance of the trial court’s determination”]; Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 [“a party challenging a judgment has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record”].) We reach the same conclusion as to the October 15, 2020 hearing for the same reason.

2026We are required to uphold the ruling if it is correct on any basis, 5 regardless of whether such basis was actually invoked.” (In re Marriage of Burgess (1996) 13 Cal.4th 25, 32 ; see also Montenegro v. Diaz (2001) 26 Cal.4th 249, 255 .) “‘It is well settled, of course, that a party challenging a judgment [or order] has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record.’ [Citation.]” (Elena S. v. Kroutik (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 570, 574 .) The trial court’s order is presumed to be correct. “‘“‘“All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support [the trial court’s order] on matt

2026(Elena S. v. Kroutik (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 570, 574 (Elena S.).) As the party challenging the order, Christopher bore the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record.

2022In any event, “[i]t is well settled, of course, that a party challenging a judgment has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record.” (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 .) “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 should be affirmed.” (Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish & Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043, 1051, fn. 9 .) “If an appellant intends to raise any issue that requires consideration of the oral proceedings in the superior court, the record on appeal

2016This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’ [Citations.]” (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 , original italics.) “It is well settled, of course, that a party challenging a judgment [or order] has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record. [Citations.]” (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 .) “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 should be affirmed.” (Mo

2022(Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295 ; Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 [“[A] party challenging a judgment has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record”].) “ ‘A necessary corollary to this rule [is] that a record is inadequate . . . if the appellant predicates error 6 only on the part of the record he [or she] provides [to] the trial court, but ignores or does not present to the appellate court portions of the proceedings below which may provide grounds upon which the decision of the trial court could be affirmed.’ [Citation.]” (Osgood v. Landon (2005) 1

2021(Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295-1296 (Maria P.).) Hage, as the party challenging the trial court’s ruling, has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record.

2025(Walling v. Kimball (1941) 17 Cal.2d 364, 373 [noting 23. that “an appellant has the burden of showing reversible error …”]; Alafi v. Cohen (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 46 , 62 [same].) III.

2023Because the issue was not raised below, the juvenile court had no occasion to make a factual finding on this question. “‘It is well settled that all presumptions and intendments are in favor of supporting the judgment or order appealed from, and that an appellant has the burden of showing reversible error, and that, in the absence of such showing, the judgment or order appealed from will be affirmed. [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (Walling v. Kimball (1941) 17 Cal.2d 364, 373 .) If the Department is correct — if there is no duty to inquire of extended family members when a detention is pursuant to

2016(Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 ["a party challenging a judgment has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record"]; Kashmiri v. Regents of University of California (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 809, 849 [the appealing party must provide an 4 Rangel-Palacios submitted with her motion to augment what appears to be excerpts of the discovery requests with handwritten notations.

2016(Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 ["a party challenging a judgment has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record"]; Kashmiri v. Regents of University of California (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 809, 849 [the appealing party must provide an adequate record demonstrating error].) "We cannot presume error from an incomplete record." (Christie v. Kimball (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1407, 1412 .) We are not permitted 4 to speculate as to the contents of the missing portions of the record or the issues that may have raised below.

2023Accordingly, we apply the de novo standard of review [to this issue].’ ”].) Although deference to the trial court’s resolution of respondents’ mandamus and CEQA claims is not required, the court’s rulings are subject to the presumption of correctness applicable to all trial court judgments and orders.11 Accordingly, “ ‘all presumptions and intendments are in favor of supporting the judgment[,] . . . the appellant has the burden of showing reversible error, and in the absence of such showing, the judgment . . . will be affirmed.’ [Citations.]” (See Estate of Sapp (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 86, 104 .

2023Therefore, we adhere to the generally applicable rules that “ ‘all presumptions and intendments are in favor of supporting the judgment or order appealed from,’ ” and that “ ‘the appellant[s] ha[ve] the burden of showing reversible error . . . .’ [Citations.]” (See Estate of Sapp (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 86, 104 ; see also Hernandez, supra, 37 Cal.App.5th at p. 277 [“ ‘We are not obliged to make . . . arguments for [appellant] [citation], nor are we obliged to speculate about which issues counsel intend to raise.’ ”]; Alki Partners, LP v. DB Fund Services, LLC (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 574, 590 (Alki

2024To put it another way, it is presumed that the unreported trial testimony would demonstrate the absence of error. [Citation.]” (Estate of Fain (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 973, 992 ; Rossiter v. Benoit 13 (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 706, 712 ; Foust v. San Jose Construction Co., Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 181 , 186–187.) The record on appeal is insufficient to establish the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing Albinali’s case.

2022All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent. . . .’ (Orig. italics.) [Citation.]” (Rossiter v. Benoit (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 706, 712 .) In the absence of a proper record on appeal, the judgment is presumed correct and must be affirmed.

2025In the absence of a reporter’s transcript or other record of the oral proceedings before the trial court, the appeal is treated as “an appeal on the judgment roll.” (Allen v. Toten, supra, 172 Cal.App.3d at p. 1082 ; Krueger v. Bank of America, supra, 145 Cal.App.3d at p. 207 .) On such an appeal, “we ‘ “must conclusively presume that the evidence is ample to sustain the [trial court’s] findings,” ’ ” and our “review is limited to determining whether any error ‘appears on the face of the record.’ ” (Nielsen v. Gibson (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 318, 324-325 .) “[T]he absence of a court reporter at

2025As a result, his appeal is treated as “an appeal on the judgment roll.” (Allen v. Toten (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1079, 1082 ; id. at pp. 1082-1083.) In reviewing such an appeal, “we ‘ “must conclusively presume that the evidence is ample to sustain the [trial court’s] findings,” ’ ” and our “review is limited to determining whether any error ‘appears on the face of the record.’ ” (Nielsen v. Gibson (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 318, 324-325 .) “[T]he absence of a court reporter at trial court proceedings and the resulting lack of a verbatim record of such proceedings will frequently be fatal to a litiga

2016This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.' " (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 .) "It is well settled, of course, that a party challenging a judgment [or order] has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record." (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 .) "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 should be affirmed." (Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish & Game Com. (

2015This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.' " (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 .) "It is well settled, of course, that a party challenging a judgment [or order] has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record." (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 (Ballard).) "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 should be affirmed." (Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish & Ga

2025DISCUSSION I Appellate Rules of Procedure “It is well settled . . . that a party challenging a judgment [or order] has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record.” (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 .) “ ‘ “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 should be affirmed.” ’ ” (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 609 (Jameson) [failure to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against the appellant]; see Jade Fashion & Co.,

2025The matter was fully briefed in July 2025 and assigned to this panel in August 2025. 3 DISCUSSION I Appellate Rules of Procedure “It is well settled . . . that a party challenging a judgment has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record.” (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 .) “ ‘ “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 should be affirmed.” ’ ” (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 609 (Jameson) [failure to provide an adequate record on an issue require

2022(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.120(b).) “A judgment or order of a lower court is presumed to be correct on appeal, and all intendments and presumptions are indulged in favor of its correctness.” (In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133 .) “This presumption has special significance when . . . the appeal is based upon the clerk’s transcript.” (Ehrler v. Ehrler (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 147, 154 .) “ ‘It is elementary and fundamental that on a clerk’s transcript appeal the appellate court must conclusively presume that the evidence is ample to sustain the findings . . . .’ ” (Ibid.) Her

2016(Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 ; 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Appeal, § 628, p. 704.) “ ‘It is elementary and fundamental that on a clerk’s transcript appeal the appellate court must conclusively presume that the evidence is ample to sustain the findings, and that the only questions 2 presented are as to the sufficiency of the pleadings and whether the findings support the judgment.’ [Citations.]” (Ehrler v. Ehrler (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 147, 154 , see also Gee v. American Realty & Construction, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1416 [if record is inadequate for meaningfu

2021This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’” (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 .) Thus, “a party challenging a judgment has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record.” (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 .) “Failure to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against [the appellant]. [Citation.]” (Hernandez v. California Hospital Medical Center (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 498, 502 ; Christie v. Kimball (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1407, 1412 [e

2016(Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 ["a party challenging a judgment has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record"]; Kashmiri v. Regents of University of California (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 809, 849 [the appealing party must provide an adequate record demonstrating error].) "We cannot presume error from an incomplete record." (Christie v. Kimball (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1407, 1412 .) We are not permitted 4 to speculate as to the contents of the missing portions of the record or the issues that may have raised below.

2023(Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229 , 1245–1247.) “A judgment or order of a lower court is presumed to be correct on appeal, and all intendments and presumptions are indulged in favor of its correctness.” (In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133 .) “[T]he 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); Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 .) “It is well settled, of

2021(Jameson, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 609 .) same, but no greater, consideration than other litigants and attorneys.” (Nelson v. Gaunt (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 623, 638 ; see also Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1247 [self-represented litigants are required to follow correct rules of procedure].) 12 Hage refers to an attachment to his opening brief (“Exhibit ‘OB1’ ”) in support of his position.10 Although it is not appropriate to consider this attachment that is not part of the record (Lona, supra, 202 Cal.App.4th at p. 102; Hodge, supra, 130 Cal.App.4th at p. 546, fn. 1), it, in any event,

2021(State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Pietak (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 600, 610 .) “ ‘It is well settled, of course, that a party challenging a judgment [or order] has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record.’ . . . .

2016(State Farm Fire & Casually Co. v. Pietak (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 600, 610 [ 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 256 ].) We therefore see no reason to disturb the court’s ruling in this regard.

2025“It is well settled, of course, that a party challenging a judgment has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record.” (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 [concluding that, “[b]ecause plaintiff has failed to provide such a record, we have no occasion to consider further the merits of his cross- appeal”]; Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 121, 132 [relying on Uribe to reject the defendants’ claim because, having elected not to provide a reporter’s transcript of the trial proceedings, “they failed to provide this court with a record adequate to eva

2024The amount of punitive damages, if any, will be decided later.” 14 Construction Co., Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 181, 184-188 ; Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 121, 132 .) That is because “a party challenging a judgment has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record.” (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 .) And “ ‘[i]t is well established that a reviewing court starts with the presumption that the record contains evidence to sustain every finding of fact.’ ” (Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 881 (Foreman & Clark Corp).) Whe