Marriage of Hiramanek CA6

I. BACKGROUND

Our review in this case has been severely impeded by multiple deficiencies in Adil’s briefs, which border on incomprehensible at times. Rule 8.204(a)(2)(C) of the California Rules of Court requires the appellant to “[p]rovide a summary of the significant facts limited to matters in the record.” While Adil sets forth facts with respect to most (though not all) of the issues he raises, he presents no intelligible narrative. Instead, his factual presentations consist of lists of dates followed by either record

1 We consolidated the appeals in H036723 and H036471 for purposes of oral argument and decision. 2 “As is customary in family law cases, we refer to the parties by their first names for purposes of clarity and not out of disrespect.” (Kuehn v. Kuehn (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 824, 828, fn. 2.) 3 On June 2, 2010, the family court issued an order declaring Adil a vexatious litigant under Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7. We affirmed that order in a nonpublished opinion on August 23, 2012. (In re Marriage of Hiramanek (Aug. 23, 2012, H035887) 2012 WL 3608515 [nonpub. opn.].)

2 excerpts or shorthand descriptions of events that are, at best, hard to follow.4 He…