Aleksa Simich Construction v. Centeno CA2/3

DISCUSSION

Centeno contends that the trial court erroneously found that ASC was owed the

proceeds of the $44,251.77 check sent to Centeno by his insurance company. This is, in

essence, an argument that substantial evidence does not support the trial court’s

findings. However, Centeno has not provided the court with a reporter’s transcript of

the trial proceedings. It is the appellant’s burden to provide an adequate record on

appeal. (Amato v. Mercury Casualty Co. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1784, 1794.) To the

extent the record is inadequate, we make all reasonable inferences in favor of the

judgment. (Ibid.) By omitting the reporter’s transcript, Centeno has failed to establish

what the parties testified or what was accepted into evidence. We therefore make all

reasonable inferences in favor of the judgment and assume that the missing evidence

constituted substantial evidence in support of the trial court’s findings. (Rossiter v.

Benoit (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 706, 712, overruled on another issue in Wilson v. Garcia

(1985) 471 U.S. 261.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. The respondent is entitled to costs, if any, on appeal.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL…