findings or reversible error in California

2015(Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 .) Appellate courts "adopt all intendments and inferences to affirm the judgment or order unless the record expressly contradicts them." (Nielsen v. Gibson (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 318, 324 .) Where an appeal is presented to us with no reporter's transcript, the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are presumed to be supported by substantial evidence, "unless the judgment is not supported by the findings or reversible error appears on the face of the [available] record." (Krueger v. Bank of America (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 204, 207 ; acco

2014(Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 ; In re Kathy P. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 91 .) Appellate courts “adopt all intendments and inferences to affirm the judgment or order unless the record expressly contradicts them.” (Nielsen v. Gibson (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 318, 324 .) Where an appeal is presented to us with no reporter’s transcript, the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are presumed to be supported by substantial evidence, “unless the judgment is not supported by the findings or reversible error appears on the face of the [available] record.” (Krueger v. Bank of America

2015Co. (1975) 54 Cal.App.3d 140, 142, fn. 1 [“This appeal is based upon only the clerk’s transcript and, as such, is considered to be upon the judgment roll alone. [Citation.] Hence the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are presumed to be supported by substantial evidence and are binding upon us, unless the judgment is not supported by the findings or reversible error appears on the face of the record.”]; Ruzich v. Boro (1943) 58 Cal.App.2d 541, 543 ; see also California Rule of Court, rule 8.163 [“The reviewing court will presume that the record in an appeal includes all matt

2013Co. (1975) 54 Cal.App.3d 140, 143, fn. 1 [“This appeal is based upon only the clerk‟s transcript and, as such, is considered to be upon the 7 judgment roll alone. [Citation.] Hence the trial court‟s findings of fact and conclusions of law are presumed to be supported by substantial evidence and are binding upon us, unless the judgment is not supported by the findings or reversible error appears on the face of the record.”]; Ruzich v. Boro (1943) 58 Cal.App.2d 541, 543 .) Because there is no suggestion that the judgment was unsupported by the findings, and no reversible error appears on the fac

2015(Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 .) Appellate courts "adopt all intendments and inferences to affirm the judgment or order unless the record expressly contradicts them." (Nielsen v. Gibson (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 318, 324 .) Where an appeal is presented to us with no reporter's transcript, the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are presumed to be supported by substantial evidence, "unless the judgment is not supported by the findings or reversible error appears on the face of the [available] record." (Krueger v. Bank of America (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 204, 207 ; acco

2014(Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 ; In re Kathy P. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 91 .) Appellate courts “adopt all intendments and inferences to affirm the judgment or order unless the record expressly contradicts them.” (Nielsen v. Gibson (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 318, 324 .) Where an appeal is presented to us with no reporter’s transcript, the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are presumed to be supported by substantial evidence, “unless the judgment is not supported by the findings or reversible error appears on the face of the [available] record.” (Krueger v. Bank of America

2025(Allen v. Toten (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1079, 1082 ; Krueger v. Bank of America (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 204, 207 .) In reviewing such an appeal, “[t]he trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law . . . are presumed to be supported by substantial evidence and are binding upon us, unless the judgment is not supported by the findings or reversible error appears on the face of the record.” (Krueger, at p. 207.) In support of her judgment roll appeal, Freire has provided us an incomplete and very limited record, which spans a total of 13 pages and only consists of two written court orders and

2025(See Ruelas v. Superior Court (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 374, 383 ; Gould v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1176, 1181 .) To do so, the appellant must provide an adequate record (see Hotels Nevada, LLC v. L.A.

2025(See Ruelas v. Superior Court (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 374, 383 ; Gould v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1176, 1181 .) To do so, the appellant must provide an adequate record (see Hotels Nevada, LLC v. L.A.

2023(Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.122 [clerk’s transcript], 8.130 [reporter’s transcript], 8.137 [settled statement].) The “trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law [in its final statement of decision] therefore are presumed to be supported by substantial evidence and are binding upon us, unless the judgment is not supported by the findings or reversible error appears on the face of the record.” (Krueger v. Bank of America (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 204, 207 .) Additionally, Naifeh’s briefs are rife with factual assertions unsupported by any record citations “in dramatic noncompliance with

2022(In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408 .) The appellant also bears the burden of providing an adequate record to demonstrate the alleged error. “ ‘ “Failure to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against [the appellant].” ’ [Citations.]” (People v. Accredited Surety & Casualty Co. (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 891, 900 .) “Where, as here, the appeal is on the judgment roll alone, ‘[t]he question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings [of the trial court] is not open.’ [Citations.] Instead, ‘the evidence is conclusively presumed to support

2022(Taylor v. Nu Digital Marketing, Inc., supra, 245 Cal.App.4th at p. 288 ; Ehrler, supra, 126 Cal.App.3d at p. 154 .) II Account Stated The trial court entered judgment against Victor based, in part, on a finding that American Express proved the elements for an account stated cause of action.

2022(Taylor v. Nu Digital Marketing, Inc., supra, 245 Cal.App.4th at p. 288 ; Ehrler, supra, 126 Cal.App.3d at p. 154 .) II Account Stated The trial court entered judgment against Victor based, in part, on a finding that American Express proved the elements for an account stated cause of action.

2022(Taylor v. Nu Digital Marketing, Inc., supra, 245 Cal.App.4th at p. 288 ; Ehrler, supra, 126 Cal.App.3d at p. 154 .) II Account Stated The trial court entered judgment against Victor based, in part, on a finding that American Express proved the elements for an account stated cause of action.

2022(In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408 .) The appellant also bears the burden of providing an adequate record to demonstrate the alleged error. “ ‘ “Failure to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against [the appellant].” ’ [Citations.]” (People v. Accredited Surety & Casualty Co. (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 891, 900 .) “Where, as here, the appeal is on the judgment roll alone, ‘[t]he question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings [of the trial court] is not open.’ [Citations.] Instead, ‘the evidence is conclusively presumed to support

2014(Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 ; In re Kathy P. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 91 .) Appellate courts “adopt all intendments and inferences to affirm the judgment or order unless the record expressly contradicts them.” (Nielsen v. Gibson (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 318, 324 .) Where an appeal is presented to us with no reporter’s transcript, the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are presumed to be supported by substantial evidence, “unless the judgment is not supported by the findings or reversible error appears on the face of the [available] record.” (Krueger v. Bank of America

2014(Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 ; In re Kathy P. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 91 .) Appellate courts “adopt all intendments and inferences to affirm the judgment or order unless the record expressly contradicts them.” (Nielsen v. Gibson (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 318, 324 .) Where an appeal is presented to us with no reporter’s transcript, the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are presumed to be supported by substantial evidence, “unless the judgment is not supported by the findings or reversible error appears on the face of the [available] record.” (Krueger v. Bank of America

2014(Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 ; In re Kathy P. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 91 .) Appellate courts “adopt all intendments and inferences to affirm the judgment or order unless the record expressly contradicts them.” (Nielsen v. Gibson (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 318, 324 .) Where an appeal is presented to us with no reporter’s transcript, the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are presumed to be supported by substantial evidence, “unless the judgment is not supported by the findings or reversible error appears on the face of the [available] record.” (Krueger v. Bank of America

2014(Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 ; In re Kathy P. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 91 .) Appellate courts “adopt all intendments and inferences to affirm the judgment or order unless the record expressly contradicts them.” (Nielsen v. Gibson (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 318, 324 .) Where an appeal is presented to us with no reporter’s transcript, the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are presumed to be supported by substantial evidence, “unless the judgment is not supported by the findings or reversible error appears on the face of the [available] record.” (Krueger v. Bank of America

2014(Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 ; In re Kathy P. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 91 .) Appellate courts “adopt all intendments and inferences to affirm the judgment or order unless the record expressly contradicts them.” (Nielsen v. Gibson (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 318, 324 .) Where an appeal is presented to us with no reporter’s transcript, the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are presumed to be supported by substantial evidence, “unless the judgment is not supported by the findings or reversible error appears on the face of the [available] record.” (Krueger v. Bank of America

2014(Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 ; In re Kathy P. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 91 .) Appellate courts “adopt all intendments and inferences to affirm the judgment or order unless the record expressly contradicts them.” (Nielsen v. Gibson (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 318, 324 .) Where an appeal is presented to us with no reporter’s transcript, the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are presumed to be supported by substantial evidence, “unless the judgment is not supported by the findings or reversible error appears on the face of the [available] record.” (Krueger v. Bank of America

2014(Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 ; In re Kathy P. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 91 .) Appellate courts “adopt all intendments and inferences to affirm the judgment or order unless the record expressly contradicts them.” (Nielsen v. Gibson (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 318, 324 .) Where an appeal is presented to us with no reporter’s transcript, the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are presumed to be supported by substantial evidence, “unless the judgment is not supported by the findings or reversible error appears on the face of the [available] record.” (Krueger v. Bank of America

2013Co. (1975) 54 Cal.App.3d 140, 143, fn. 1 [“This appeal is based upon only the clerk’s transcript and, as such, is considered to be on the judgment roll alone. [Citation.] Hence the trial court’s findings and conclusions of law are presumed to be supported by substantial evidence and are binding upon us, unless the judgment is not supported by the findings or reversible error appears on the face of the record.”].) “ ‘In a judgment roll appeal every presumption is in favor of the validity of the judgment and any condition of facts consistent with its validity will be presumed to have existed rat

1984Consequently, “every presumption is in favor of the validity of the judgment and any condition of facts consistent with its validity will be presumed to have existed rather than one which will defeat it. [Citation.] The sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings is not open to review. [Citation.]” (Wheelright v. County of Marin (1970) 2 Cal.3d 448, 454 [ 85 Cal.Rptr. 809 , 467 P.2d 537 ], app. dism. and cert. den., 400 U.S. 807 [ 27 L.Ed.2d 37 , 91 S.Ct. 65 ].) Furthermore, “[t]he trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law . . . are presumed to be supported by substantial e

1984Consequently, “every presumption is in favor of the validity of the judgment and any condition of facts consistent with its validity will be presumed to have existed rather than one which will defeat it. [Citation.] The sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings is not open to review. [Citation.]” (Wheelright v. County of Marin (1970) 2 Cal.3d 448, 454 [ 85 Cal.Rptr. 809 , 467 P.2d 537 ], app. dism. and cert. den., 400 U.S. 807 [ 27 L.Ed.2d 37 , 91 S.Ct. 65 ].) Furthermore, “[t]he trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law . . . are presumed to be supported by substantial e