DISCUSSION

As best we can decipher, objector contends the trial court committed the following errors in granting petitioner’s petition: The trial court (1) failed to acknowledge “an improperly Administrated [sic] Trust by [petitioner]”; (2) failed to compel petitioner to produce “evidence of disbursements and Home to Beneken”; (3) erroneously granted petitioner “PREJUDICIAL JUDGMENT OF CLOUDED TITLE”; and (4) failed to recuse itself from considering her “Appeal” of the court’s order (which, as mentioned, she improperly filed in the superior court). (Boldface and underscoring omitted.) Despite setting forth these contentions, objector’s briefs contain no statement of the facts aside from an exceedingly short (less than half a page) recitation of the procedural history of the case. Further, objector’s briefs contain no description or analysis of the trial court’s order that is the subject of her appeal. Finally, objector’s briefs lack any sort of intelligible legal argument that is grounded in the facts of the case or the findings of the trial court. These omissions are fatal. “ ‘[I]t is a fundamental principle of appellate procedure that a trial court judgment is ordinarily presumed to be correct and the 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. [Citations.]’ (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608– 609 [citations].) ‘This means that an appellant must do more than assert error and leave it to the appellate court to search the record and the law books to test his claim. The appellant must present an adequate argument including citations to supporting authorities and to relevant portions of the record. [Citations.]’ [Citation.] Accordingly, the California Rules of Court expressly require appellate briefs to ‘[s]tate each point . . . and support each

3 point by argument and, if possible, by citation of authority’ and to ‘[s]upport any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page number of the record where the matter appears.’ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B) & (C).)” (L.O. v. Kilrain (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 616, 619–620 (L.O.).) Without a proper recitation of the material facts, supported by record citations, or an intelligible argument, supported by pertinent legal authority, we are left unable to do what we are called upon to do, to wit, review the trial court’s judgment for error. “ ‘It is not our place to construct theories or arguments to undermine the judgment and defeat the presumption of correctness.’ [Citation.] Nor are we ‘required to search the record on [our] own seeking error.’ [Citation.] Consequently, ‘[w]hen an appellant fails to raise a point, or asserts it but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citations to authority, we treat the point as waived.’ ” (L.O., supra, 96 Cal.App.5th at p. 620; accord, Citizens for Positive Growth & Preservation v. City of Sacramento (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 609, 626–627, fn. 8 [when “ ‘no [record] citation “is furnished on a particular point,” ’ ” the court may treat it as forfeited]; Sprague v. Equifax, Inc. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1012, 1050 [the reviewing court is “ ‘not required to make an independent, unassisted study of the record in search of error or grounds to support the judgment’ ”].) Lastly, objector is not exempt from these mandatory rules of appellate practice because she is representing herself on appeal. “Under the law, a party may choose to act as his or her own attorney. [Citations.] ‘[S]uch a party is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys. [Citation.]’ [Citation.] Thus, as is the case with attorneys, pro. per. litigants must follow

4 correct rules of procedure. [Citations.]” (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246–1247.) Thus, because appellant’s briefs wholly lack cognizable legal argument with citation to supporting facts and law, we deem her contentions as abandoned. (Berger v. Godden (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 1113, 1119.) The order stands.

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed. Objector shall bear costs on appeal.

Jackson, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

Simons, J. Chou, J.

A167585/Spangler v. Thompson

5