Spangler

Spangler v. Thompson CA1/5

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 23, 2024A167585California692 words

Opinion

Opinion

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…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.