Roebke

DISCUSSION

Ahmed argues the evidence presented at trial did not support the judgment. He asserts the evidence showed Roebke unreasonably refused to accept rent payments and breached the

2 implied warranty of habitability by failing to make repairs and remediate mold. He also asserts the trial court made other procedural and substantive errors. Ahmed does not meet his burden of affirmatively showing the trial court erred. Ahmed’s deficient briefing coupled with an inadequate record compels us to conclude he has forfeited his contentions on appeal. A judgment or order of the lower court is “‘presumed correct,’” and all intendments and presumptions are indulged in favor of its correctness. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) “‘In order to demonstrate error, an appellant must supply the reviewing court with some cogent argument supported by legal analysis and citation to the record.’” (United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 142, 153.) Ahmed’s factual contentions are forfeited because he does not adequately support them. His briefs do not provide a fair summary of the evidence upon which the trial court’s judgment is based. (Oak Valley…