Filed 10/18/16? Payne v. Payne CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Placer)
| KEVIN PAYNE,
Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MARIE PAYNE (HUNTINGTON), Defendant and Respondent; PLACER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES, Intervener and Respondent. |
C079922
(Super. Ct. No. SDR17242)
|
Appellant Kevin Payne (Father) appeals from a court order denying his motion to retroactively modify a child support order. ?Father raises a single claim on appeal:? the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion.
Father has elected to proceed on a clerk?s transcript.? (Cal. Rules of Court, rule?8.121.)? Thus, the appellate record does not include a reporter?s transcript of the hearing in this matter.? This is referred to as a ?judgment roll? appeal.? (Allen v. Toten (1985) 172?Cal.App.3d 1079, 1082-1083; Krueger v. Bank of America (1983) 145?Cal.App.3d 204, 207.)? Father?s claim is not supported by the record.? Accordingly, we affirm the trial court?s order.
The limited record on appeal includes only the order from which Father is appealing, the notice of appeal, and the notice designating the record on appeal.? Thus, all we know is that on June?25, 2015, a contested hearing was held, both parties were present, and Father was represented by counsel.
On appeal, we must presume the trial court?s judgment is correct.? (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2?Cal.3d 557, 564.)? Thus, we must adopt all inferences in favor of the judgment, unless the record expressly contradicts them.? (See Brewer v. Simpson (1960) 53?Cal.2d 567, 583.)
It is the burden of the party challenging a judgment to provide an adequate record to assess claims of error.? (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24?Cal.4th 1122, 1140-1141.)? When an appeal is ?on the judgment roll? (Allen v. Toten, supra, 172?Cal.App.3d at pp.?1082-1083), we must conclusively presume evidence was presented that is sufficient to support the court?s findings (Ehrler v. Ehrler (1981) 126?Cal.App.3d 147, 154).? Our review is limited to determining whether any error ?appears on the face of the record.?? (National Secretarial Service, Inc. v. Froehlich (1989) 210?Cal.App.3d 510, 521; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.163.)
Father contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion.? Absent a reporter?s transcript, we presume official duties have been regularly performed (Evid. Code, ??664), and this presumption applies to the actions of trial judges. ?(People v. Duran (2002) 97?Cal.App.4th 1448, 1461-1462, fn. 5; Olivia v. Suglio (1956) 139?Cal.App.2d 7, 9 [?If the invalidity does not appear on the face of the record, it will be presumed that what ought to have been done was not only done but rightly done?].) ?Accordingly, we presume on this record the trial court properly exercised its discretion by correctly applying the law and giving due consideration to the evidence before it, including both the written submissions by the parties and the testimony given at the hearing.? (See Olivia v. Suglio, supra, 139?Cal.App.2d at p. 9.)? We further presume the evidence was sufficient to support the order.? (Ehrler v. Ehrler, supra, 126?Cal.App.3d at p. 154.)
DISPOSITION
The trial court?s order is affirmed.
????????? ??????????/s/???????????????????????
HOCH, J.
We concur:
????????? ?????????/s/????????????????????????
DUARTE, Acting P. J.
????????? ?????????/s/????????????????????????
RENNER, J.