DISCUSSION

Frantzich contends the probate court erred in summarily denying her petition and granting Rogers’s petition. She argues that because competing petitions for probate were filed, the probate court was required to set an evidentiary hearing. She asserts that her petition constitutes an objection to Rogers’s petition under Probate Code section 1043, subdivision (a),4 and therefore the probate court was required to hold a hearing under

2According to the register of actions, the opposition was filed on July 11. Frantzich did not include the opposition in the appellant’s appendix, and it is not part of the appellate record. 3 The hearings on the petitions were not recorded. 4Section 1043, subdivision (a) provides: “An interested person may appear and make a response or objection in writing at or before the hearing.”

3. Probate Code section 1022.5 She asserts that had the probate court held an evidentiary hearing, she would have produced evidence that the handwritten codicil was a valid, holographic testamentary instrument, and the failure to hold a hearing prevented her from proving its authenticity. Frantzich asks us to reverse the order denying her petition and remand for an evidentiary hearing. It is not clear from the record the basis for the probate court’s denial of Frantzich’s petition. In conducting our appellate review, we presume that a judgment or order of a lower court is correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 [“‘All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support [the judgment] on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown.’”]; see In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133.) We affirm the judgment or order as long as it is correct on any theory applicable to the case. (In re Estate of Beard (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 753, 776-777.) A party challenging a judgment or an appealable order “has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record.” (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574.) “‘A necessary corollary to this rule is that if the record is inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the decision of the trial court should be affirmed.’” (Gee v. American Realty & Construction, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1416; see Foust v. San Jose Construction Co., Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 181, 187; Hernandez v. California Hospital Medical Center (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 498, 502 (Hernandez ) [record lacked copies of motion and opposition; issue resolved against appellant due to inadequate record].) Thus, where the appellant fails to provide an adequate record as to any issue the appellant has raised on appeal, the issue must be resolved against the appellant. (Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295–1296.)

5Section 1022 provides: “An affidavit or verified petition shall be received as evidence when offered in an uncontested proceeding under this code.”

4. Here, Frantzich did not include Rogers’s opposition to Frantzich’s petition in the appellant’s appendix. Without the opposition, “we cannot review the basis of the [probate] court’s decision” and the issue must be resolved against Frantzich. (Hernandez, supra, 78 Cal.App.4th at p. 502.) The reasoning of Hernandez applies here, as we do not know what issues Rogers raised in his opposition which could support the probate court’s ruling. Moreover, the record we do have reveals an appropriate basis for the probate court to deny Frantzich’s petition, as it shows that neither Frantzich nor her attorney appeared at the hearing on her petition. Even if a pre-probate will contest is pending, if a contestant fails to appear at a hearing on a petition to admit a will to probate, and fails to inform the probate court of the status of the contest or request a continuance of the hearing, the probate court may infer that the objection to probate has been resolved or the contestant has elected to treat the matter as a post-probate will contest. (Estate of Horn (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 67, 72 [“As a general rule a probate court should not be required to act on its own motion to postpone a hearing on admitting a will to probate even when a petition contesting the will is in the probate file.”].) Since Frantzich did not appear at the August 20 hearing, either individually or through her attorney, the probate court was well within its authority to deny Frantzich’s petition on that basis alone and to admit the will and codicils to probate on Rogers’s petition. In sum, Frantzich has not satisfied her burden on appeal to show reversible error. Accordingly, we must affirm the order denying her petition.

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed. Costs on appeal are awarded to Rogers.

5.