Pak

I. BACKGROUND

A. Standard of Review Dixon does not challenge the court’s findings of fact or the evidence supporting them. Rather, her claim is that the court committed legal error because it did not have jurisdiction in this unlawful detainer case to

1 issue an order prohibiting all occupancy of the property. Our review of a question of law following a bench trial is de novo. (Thompson v. Asimos (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 970, 981.) Nevertheless, “A judgment or order of a lower court is presumed to be correct on appeal, and all intendments and presumptions are indulged in favor of its correctness.” (In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133.) Also, “Under the doctrine of implied findings, the reviewing court must infer, following a bench trial, that the trial court impliedly made every factual finding necessary to support its decision.” (Fladeboe v. American Isuzu Motors Inc. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 42, 48.) This is especially true when an appeal proceeds on a clerk’s transcript alone, and is supported by neither the reporter’s transcript nor a settled statement. Where no reporter’s transcript is provided, an order is presumed correct as to all evidentiary matters…