DISCUSSION

Williams contends the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion to set aside the spousal support order. As we discuss, the appellate record designated by Williams is not adequate to permit us to consider her appeal on the merits, and thus we will affirm the trial court’s order.

1 In relevant part, section 3691 provides: “The grounds and time limits for an action or motion to set aside a support order, or part thereof, are governed by this section and shall be one of the following: [¶] (a) Actual fraud. Where the defrauded party was kept in ignorance or in some other manner, other than through the party’s own lack of care or attention, was fraudulently prevented from fully participating in the proceeding. An action or motion based on fraud shall be brought within six months after the date on which the complaining party discovered or reasonably should have discovered the fraud. [¶] (b) Perjury. An action or motion based on perjury shall be brought within six months after the date on which the complaining party discovered or reasonably should have discovered the perjury.” (Italics added.)

3 “Under well-established rules of appellate procedure, . . . the appellant . . . has the burden to provide an adequate record on appeal and to affirmatively show error.” (In re Marriage of Deal (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 613, 622; Osgood v. Landon (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 425, 435 [“It is the appellant’s affirmative duty to show error by an adequate record”].) “ ‘Failure to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against [the] appellant. [Citation.]’ [Citation.] This principle stems from the well-established rule of appellate review that a judgment or order is presumed correct and the appellant has the burden of demonstrating prejudicial error.” (Hotels Nevada, LLC v. L.A. Pacific Center, Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 336, 348.) Here, Williams did not designate for inclusion in the appellate record most of the documents the parties filed in connection with May 31, 2018 and January 4, 2019 hearings. Most significantly for our purposes, Williams did not designate Anderson’s May 2018 income and expense declaration—that is, the very document that Anderson contends contained incomplete and misleading information.2 Williams also did not designate Anderson’s May 2018 responsive declarations or his December 2018 opposition to Williams’s motion to set aside the spousal support order.

2 At oral argument, Williams indicated that the appellate record included an income statement that Anderson attached to his income and expense declaration. The document to which Williams refers purports to show Anderson’s income and expenses from seven pieces of real property, but there is no indication in the record who prepared this document or in what context.

4 Because Williams has not provided us with Anderson’s income and expense declaration, we have no basis for evaluating Williams’s claim that Anderson failed to disclose relevant income and assets. In any event, an appellate record necessarily is inadequate if an appellant, like Williams here, “ ‘ “predicates error only on the part of the record he [or she] provides the trial court, but ignores or does not present to the appellate court portions of the proceedings below which may provide grounds upon which the decision of the trial court could be affirmed.” [Citation.]’ (Osgood v. Landon[, supra,] 127 Cal.App.4th [at p.] 435.)” (Jade Fashion & Co., Inc. v. Harkham Industries, Inc. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 635, 644.) As the party challenging the trial court’s order, Williams has an affirmative duty to provide an adequate record so that we may assess whether the trial court abused its discretion. (Vo v. Las Virgenes Municipal Water Dist. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 440, 447.) On the present record, we simply cannot do so.

5

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL

REPORTS

EDMON, P. J.

We concur:

LAVIN, J.

DHANIDINA, J.

6