FACTS

In June 2023 Husband moved out of the house (the House) he owned with Wife,

and Wife petitioned for the dissolution of their marriage. The family court ordered

Husband to pay the mortgage on the House. Husband requested an order directing the

House be sold. On February 5, 2024, the family court found the House was at risk of

being foreclosed upon, due to a balance owed of $35,000. The family court ordered the

House be sold and ordered the parties to cooperate with the sale.

On February 8, 2024, Husband requested an order directing Wife to move out of

the House. On February 9, 2024, Wife claimed she complied with the family court's

order by selling the House to "A Private Trust for 21 gold backed stamps per the 7th

Amendment." Wife asserted she remained in the House as a tenant. A hearing on

Husband's February 8, 2024, request for an order directing Wife to vacate the House

was set for April 23, 2024. A ruling on Husband's February 8, 2024, eviction request is

not included in the record.

Wife's notice of appeal specifies that she is appealing from the order entered on

February 5, 2024, and an order entered on February 8, 2024, although no substantive 2 order was entered that day. The record on appeal, consisting only of a clerk's transcript,

begins with documents dated February 5, 2024. The register of actions is the primary

document indicating what occurred in the case prior to February 5, 2024.

DISCUSSION

A. JURISDICTION

On February 16, 2024, Wife moved to dismiss the case. Within that motion,

Wife "challenge[d] the jurisdiction of the court to prosecute." On appeal, Wife

contends that she "challenged [the] jurisdiction of the court and allowed the court ten

(10) days to provide [Wife] with proof of jurisdiction. The court failed to provide the

requested proof which stands as evidence of [a] lack of jurisdiction regarding the case."

" '[[T]he appellant] has the burden of providing an adequate record. [Citation.]

Failure 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 (Jameson).) In

her appellant's opening brief, Wife contends, "The court erred in issuing a judgment on

May 2nd, 2024, that [Wife] was to be evicted from the home. The issue with this is the

court failed to provide [Wife] with proof of standing and jurisdiction, therefore [Wife] is

requesting for the court to appeal the previous judgment." The documents in the record

end in April 2024. Thus, the May 2, 2024, ruling is not in the record. Without a ruling

to review, we must resolve the issue against Wife.

Further, Wife is discussing a ruling that took place after the February 5, 2024,

order specified in her notice of appeal. "Our jurisdiction on appeal is limited in scope to

the notice of appeal and the judgment or order appealed from." (Polster, Inc. v. Swing

(1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 427, 436 (Polster).) Therefore, even if we had a copy of the 3 May 2, 2024, order, we could not review it because Wife did not appeal from that order.

Wife appealed from the February 5, 2024, order directing that the House be sold.

For the sake of addressing Wife's argument, we will apply her jurisdiction

contention to the February 5, 2024, order. Specifically, did the family court have

jurisdiction to order the sale of the marital home? Family Code section 2550 provides

that the family court "in a proceeding for dissolution of marriage ... shall ... divide the

community estate of the parties equally." "The court may make any orders the court

considers necessary to carry out the purposes of this division." (Fam. Code,§ 2553.)

The record reflects Wife petitioned the family court for dissolution of her

marriage. Wife's petition vested the family court with jurisdiction to divide the marital

property. (Fam. Code, § 2550.) Husband requested an order for the sale of the House

because the House was at risk of foreclosure. Per Husband's request, the family court

ordered the House sold so that if any profit could be made on the sale of the House, that

profit could be divided. The family court had the jurisdiction to order the sale of the

House due to Wife's petition for dissolution (Fam. Code, § 2550) and Husband's

request for an order that the House be sold (Fam. Code, § 2553).

B. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

Wife contends the family court's May 2, 2024, order directing her to vacate the

House violated her 14th amendment due process right to not be deprived of property.

(U.S. Const. Amend XIV, § 1.) The record does not include a copy of the May 2, 2024,

order, which means we have nothing to review. (Jameson, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 609

[" '[[T]he appellant] has the burden of providing an adequate record'"].) Additionally, "[o]ur

jurisdiction on appeal is limited in scope to the notice of appeal and the judgment or order 4 appealed from." (Polster, Inc. v. Swing, supra, 164 Cal.App.3d at p. 436.) Wife appealed from

the February 5, 2024, order-not the May 2, 2024, order.

Therefore, even if the clerk's transcript had included a copy of the May 2, 2024, order

we would lack jurisdiction to review it.

If we were to review Wife's contention as applied to the February 5, 2024, order

for the sale of the House, the contention would fail. The 14th Amendment provides:

"No State shall ... deprive any person of ... property, without due process oflaw."

(U.S. Const. Amend XIV, § 1.) " 'The essence of due process is the requirement that "a

person in jeopardy of serious loss [be given] notice of the case against him and the

opportunity to meet it." ' " (Today's Fresh Start, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Office of

Education (2013) 57 Cal.4th 197, 212.)

On November 20, 2023, Husband requested an order directing the House be sold.

A proof of service for Husband's request, reflecting Wife was served, was filed on

November 28, 2023. A hearing on the request was held on February 5, 2024. During

the hearing, the family court examined a foreclosure notice concerning the House and

"inquire[d] of [Wife] regarding the [House]." The foregoing reflects Wife was given

notice and an opportunity to be heard. Accordingly, Wife's contention fails because she

was afforded due process prior to the family court ordering the sale of the House.

C. JUDGE MURPHY

The Honorable Judge Cheryl Murphy presided over the case in the family court.

On February 16, 2024, in the family court, Wife "demand[ed] proof' of Judge Murphy's

oath of office.

5 On appeal, Wife contends that she "requested the documentation of Cheryl

Murphy's surety bond and oath of office for her authority to act in her alleged legal

capacity. After ten (10) days, Cheryl Murphy failed to provide any documentation to

satisfy [Wife's] request." Wife contends Judge Murphy "lacked authority to make any

judgment against [Wife]" because Judge Murphy is " 'not a judge.' "

" '[[T]he appellant] has the burden of providing an adequate record. [Citation.]

Failure to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved

against [the appellant].' " (Jameson, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 609.) The record does not

include a ruling by the family court on Wife's demand for proof. Without a ruling to

review, we must resolve the issue against Wife.

Further, Wife is discussing an issue raised in the family court after the February

5, 2024, order specified in her notice of appeal. "Our jurisdiction on appeal is limited in

scope to the notice of appeal and the judgment or order appealed from." (Polster,

supra, 164 Cal.App.3d at p. 436.) Therefore, even if there is a ruling on Wife's demand

and we had a copy of that ruling, then we would lack jurisdiction to address the issue.

Ifwe were to apply Wife's contention to the February 5, 2024, order, the

contention would fail. In Wife's appellant's opening brief, she asserts that her demand

for proof is a petition for a writ quo warranto. "Quo warranto is the specific action by

which one challenges 'any person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or

exercises any public office.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 803.) It is the exclusive remedy in

cases where it is available." (Nicolopulos v. City of Lawndale (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th

1221, 1225-1226.) Quo warranto actions must be brought by the Attorney General or

6 with the permission of the Attorney General. (Id at pp. 1228-1229.) Wife is not

suing in the name of the People of the State of California and there is no indication she

has the consent of the California Attorney General. Accordingly, Wife's quo warranto

contention fails.

DISPOSITION

The February 5, 2024, order is affirmed. Appellant is to bear her own costs on

appeal.1 (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(l).)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

MILLER

J.

We concur:

McKINSTER Acting P. J.

MENETREZ

J.

1 We do not award costs to respondent because he did not make an appearance in this court.

7