Marriage of DiMarco CA2/2

BACKGROUND

The record includes numerous transcripts, yet DiMarco‟s opening brief contains no “summary of the significant facts,” a mandatory element. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(2)(C)); Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Co. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 855, 869.) Appellant‟s “burden to provide a fair summary of the evidence „grows with the complexity of the record.‟” (Boeken v. Philip Morris, Inc. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1640, 1658.) His “Statement of the Case” cites only the judgment; he then moves directly to the “Argument.” The brief is replete with unprofessional sarcasm and ad hominem attacks on the trial judge. Appellant‟s opening brief is, in a word, inadequate. As this Court has said in the past, “The appellate court starts with the presumption that the evidence sustains each finding of fact [citations], and the burden rests upon appellant „to demonstrate that there is no substantial evidence to support the challenged findings.‟ [Citations.] To this end appellant must set forth in his brief all material evidence upon the point, not merely his own proofs [citations]; if this is not done the point is deemed waived . . . . Counsel in this case has made no…