Baganizi v. Uwamariya (In re Marriage of Baganizi)

• Decision Date: 27 April 2023
• Docket Number: E078282
• Parties: In re the Marriage of ENIAS BAGANIZI and BEATRICE MARIE UWAMARIYA. v. BEATRICE MARIE UWAMARIYA, Appellant. ENIAS BAGANIZI, Respondent,
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

1

In re the Marriage of ENIAS BAGANIZI and BEATRICE MARIE UWAMARIYA.

ENIAS BAGANIZI, Respondent, v. BEATRICE MARIE UWAMARIYA, Appellant.

E078282

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division

April 27, 2023

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, No FAMSS805778 Steven J. Singley, Judge. Affirmed.

Beatrice Uwamariya, in pro. per., for Appellant.

Law Offices of Indu Srivastav and Indu Srivastav for Respondent.

OPINION

FIELDS J.

I. INTRODUCTION

In 2008, respondent Enias Baganizi (husband) filed a petition seeking to nullify his marriage to appellant Beatrice Marie Uwamariya (wife). The family law proceedings eventually resulted in the entry of a status-only judgment in July 2010, dissolving their marriage, as well as various orders requiring husband to pay for spousal and child support. On October 4, 2021, wife filed a request for an order seeking to set aside the status-only judgment entered more than ten years earlier, modify the support orders, and obtain an award of attorney fees.

On November 30, 2021, the trial court entered an order denying wife's requests, and wife appeals from this order. We conclude that wife has failed to provide an adequate record on appeal to review any of her claims of error and, as a result, we are required to affirm the order subject of this appeal.

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 16, 2008, husband filed a petition seeking to nullify his marriage to wife. During the course of the proceedings, the trial court entered orders requiring husband to pay spousal and child support and modified those orders upon a showing of changed circumstances.

On May 11, 2010, the parties appeared for trial on husband's nullity petition and, following an in-chambers conference, the trial court granted a decree of dissolution of marriage. As a result, a status-only judgment terminating the marital status of the parties was entered on July 30, 2010.

On July 9, 2021, wife filed a motion requesting modification of husband's child support obligations. This motion was heard on September 3. However, the trial court did not enter an order on wife's motion until October 7.

On October 4, 2021, wife filed a request for order seeking: (1) an order setting aside the status judgment entered in 2010; (2) an order modifying the prior spousal and child support orders; and (3) an order requiring husband to pay attorney fees. The register of actions indicates that husband filed responsive declarations in opposition to wife's requests, but a copy of these documents were not included as part of the record on appeal. The trial court held a hearing on wife's requests on November 30, at which time the trial court stated it would take the matter under submission and issue its order in writing. The register of actions indicates the trial court entered a minute order on wife's requests that same day and mailed its written order to the parties, but a copy of the order was not included as part of the record on appeal.

III. DISCUSSION

In this appeal, wife challenges the trial court's denial of (1) her request to set aside a prior judgment entered in 2010; (2) her request to modify prior spousal and child support orders; and (3) her request for an award of attorney fees. Ordinarily, such orders are reviewed on appeal for abuse of discretion. (In re Marriage of Varner (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 128, 138 ["[T]he trial court's exercise of discretion in refusing to set aside a judgment . . . is subject to reversal on appeal only if we find an abuse of that discretion."]; In re Marriage of Dietz (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 387, 398 [" 'Appellate review of orders modifying spousal support is governed by an abuse of discretion standard ....' "]; In re Marriage of McHugh (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1247 ["We review an order establishing or modifying child support . . . for an abuse of discretion."]; In re Marriage of Drake (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1166 ["Awards of attorney fees are reviewed for abuse of discretion."].)

However," '" [a] judgment or order of the [trial] court is presumed correct," '" and "[i]t is the appellant's affirmative duty to show error by an adequate record. [Citation.] 'A necessary corollary to this rule [is] that a record is inadequate, and appellant defaults, if the appellant predicates error only on the part of the record he provides 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.'" (Osgood v. Landon (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 425, 435; see In re Marriage of Deal (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 71, 80.) An appellant's" '[f]ailure to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against [the appellant.]'" (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 609.) This rule applies equally to a self-represented party. (Elena S. v. Kroutik (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 570, 574 [in propria persona appellant was obligated to designate adequate record on appeal]; Gamet v. Blanchard (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1284 ["[I]n propria persona litigants are not entitled to special exemptions from the California Rules of Court or Code of Civil Procedure."].)

Here while the parties agree that the substantive effect of the trial court's November 30, 2021 order was to deny the relief requested in wife's October 4 request for order, neither party has made the trial court's order part of the record on appeal or otherwise provided this court with a copy of the order to review. Further, the register of actions indicates that husband filed responsive declarations in opposition to wife's request for order, and husband's counsel specifically directed the trial court's attention to this written response at the time of hearing. However, wife did not...