DISCUSSION

On appeal, we must presume the trial court’s judgment is correct. (People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal.4th 644, 666.) Thus, we must adopt all inferences in favor of the judgment, unless the record expressly contradicts them. (See Brewer v. Simpson (1960) 53 Cal.2d 567, 583.) The party challenging a judgment bears the burden to provide an adequate record to assess claims of error. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1140-1141.) When an appeal is “on the judgment roll” (Allen v. Toten, supra, 172 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1082- 1083), we must conclusively presume evidence was presented that is sufficient to support the court’s findings. (Ehrler v. Ehrler (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 147, 154 (Ehrler).) Our

2 review is limited to determining whether any error “appears on the face of the record.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.163; In re Marriage of Hall (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 313, 316) These restrictive rules of appellate procedure apply to husband even though he is representing himself on appeal. (Wantuch v. Davis (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 786, 795; Leslie v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 117, 121; see also Nelson v. Gaunt (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 623, 638-639.) Here, with regard to the real property in the Philippines, husband argues both that wife perjured herself and the evidence “clearly indicated” the property was purchased with community funds. Thus, he contends, the trial court erred in characterizing the property as wife’s separate property. As we have explained, on a judgment roll appeal our review is limited to error appearing on the face of the record. (See In re Marriage of Hall, supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at p. 316.) We presume official duties have been regularly performed (Evid. Code, § 664), and this presumption applies to the actions of trial judges (see People v. Duran (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1448, 1461-1462, fn. 5; Olivia v. Suglio (1956) 139 Cal.App.2d 7, 9 [“If the invalidity does not appear on the face of the record, it will be presumed that what ought to have been done was not only done but rightly done”]). The trial court found that title to the real property was held in wife’s name alone. Accordingly, the property was presumptively wife’s separate property. (Evid. Code, § 662 [“The owner of the legal title to property is presumed to be the owner of the full beneficial title”].) The court further found husband failed to present clear and convincing evidence to rebut that presumption. (Evid. Code, § 662 [title presumption “may be rebutted by clear and convincing proof”].) Without a reporter’s transcript, we must conclusively presume that sufficient evidence was introduced to support the trial court’s findings. (Ehrler, supra, 126 Cal.App.3d at p. 154.) Husband has not shown error. Husband next contends the trial court failed to consider the “intact amount” of “communal property” that was contained in the Fidelity Joint Account prior to the

3 parties’ separation. In support of his contention, husband argues wife agreed the balance of that account was $6,635.49 at the date of separation. The court, however, found the parties agreed the balance of the Fidelity Joint Account to be divided was “approximately $201.” Without a reporter’s transcript, or any other reviewable record of the proceedings, we must conclusively presume that the evidence submitted at the long cause hearing supports that finding. (See Ehrler, supra, 126 Cal.App.3d at p. 154.)

DISPOSITION

The order of the trial court is affirmed. Husband shall pay wife’s costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1), (2).)

/s/ Duarte, J.

We concur:

/s/ Raye, P. J.

/s/ Nicholson, J.

4