Marriage of Shaw CA3

DISCUSSION

In his notice of appeal, appellant identifies the September 17, 2019, minute order as the order from which he is appealing. That order, however, is not appealable because it directs counsel to prepare a formal order. (See Smith v. Smith (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1074, 1091 [where a formal order is required, the minute order is not appealable].)

2 Nevertheless, it is our duty to liberally construe a notice of appeal in favor of its sufficiency, so long as the other party is not misled or prejudiced. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.100(a)(2); see, e.g., Red Mountain, LLC v. Fallbrook Public Utility Dist. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 333, 344; Walker v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2005) 35 Cal.4th 15, 20.) We construe the notice of appeal as applying to the formal order after hearing prepared by counsel following the September 17, 2019, hearing, and filed by the court on January 9, 2020. We perceive no prejudice in doing so. Despite noticing his appeal as being one from the court’s order following the September 17, 2019, hearing, appellant raises grievances related only to the court’s orders issued in July 2017, September 2018, and October 2018. None of…