Filed 4/30/13 Marriage of Perez CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In re the Marriage of JUANITA and
FRANCISCO E. PEREZ.
D0061501
JUANITA PEREZ,
Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. D S43227)
v.
FRANCISCO E. PEREZ,
Respondent.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Stephanie
Sontag, Judge. Affirmed.
Juanita Perez, appearing in propria persona, appeals a judgment dissolving her
marriage to Francisco E. Perez. She contends the family court erred when it ordered her
to pay one-half of the community debts. Juanita failed to present a sufficient record to
show that the family court erred. Accordingly, we must affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In September 2010, Juanita petitioned for a dissolution of marriage. The parties
were married for about 16 years before they separated and they have two children.
Among other things, Juanita asked the court to determine property rights for the parties.
In a minute order dated July 2011, the family court dissolved the marriage, granted
primary physical custody of the children to Francisco and allowed Juanita reasonable
visitation. The court indicated that it considered the Family Code section 4320 factors,
but reserved on the issues of child and spousal support. Among other things, it found that
the debts with Washington Mutual, Wells Fargo, the telephone company, Union Bank
and a 1999 auto loan were community debts to be divided equally between the parties. In
January 2012, the family court entered a judgment in conformance with the minute order.
Juanita timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
I. General Legal Principles
It is a fundamental proposition that a judgment or order is presumed correct on
appeal. (In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133.) It is the burden of
the party challenging a judgment on appeal to provide an adequate record to assess error.
(Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1140–1141.) Although Juanita is
representing herself in propria persona, she is not exempt from the rules governing
appeals. A self-represented party is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the
same, but no greater, consideration than other litigants having attorneys. (Nwosu v. Uba
(2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246–1247.)
2
Because Juanita has elected to proceed on a clerk's transcript, we must treat this as
an appeal "on the judgment roll," to which the following rules apply: " 'Error must be
affirmatively shown by the record and will not be presumed on appeal [citation]; the
validity of the judgment on its face may be determined by looking only to the matters
constituting part of the judgment roll [citation]; where no error appears on the face of a
judgment roll record, all intendments and presumptions must be in support of the
judgment [citation] [citation]; the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings is
not open to consideration by a reviewing court [citation]; and any condition of facts
consistent with the validity of the judgment will be presumed to have existed rather than
one which would defeat it [citation].' " (Ford v. State of California (1981) 116
Cal.App.3d 507, 514; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.163.)
II. Analysis
Generally, debts incurred after the date of marriage but before the date of
separation must be divided equally. (Fam. Code, § 2622, subd. (a); In re Marriage of
Walrath (1998) 17 Cal.4th 907, 924.) We review the judgment dividing the marital estate
for abuse of discretion. (In re Marriage of Sivyer-Foley & Foley (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th
521, 526.)
Here, Juanita contends the family court erred when it ordered her to pay one-half
of the community debts because she is sick, homeless and living in a temporary shelter.
The clerk's transcript, however, does not contain any evidence supporting her contentions
or otherwise showing how the family court divided the community assets and debts.
3
Accordingly, she has not shown the family court abused its discretion when dividing the
community debts and the judgment must be affirmed.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
MCINTYRE, J.
WE CONCUR:
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
NARES, J.
4