Marriage of Howard and Meeks CA2/2

DISCUSSION

The major problem with Daryl’s appeal lies in his opening brief. As another court observed in describing a similarly inadequate brief, “[i]ndeed, this document is strongly reminiscent of those magazine puzzles of yesteryear where the reader was challenged to ‘guess what is wrong with this picture.’” (People v. Dougherty (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 278, 280.) It seems that Daryl is arguing that the judgment is vague. But, he offers no legal authority in support of this assertion. Daryl also appears to be claiming that all of his

For convenience, we refer to the parties by their first names. (In re Marriage of Smith (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 469, 475–476, fn. 1.)

Daryl purports to explain what occurred in his appellate brief. But, he offers no admissible evidence or record citations. It is well-established that we do not consider evidence purportedly contained in the briefs. (Westoil Terminals Co., Inc. v. Industrial Indemnity Co. (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 139, 152.)

2 earnings and accumulations after the date of separation are his separate property; in other words, the community interest in his pension is limited to the time of marriage. But, he offers no evidence as…