DISCUSSION

Probate Code sections 2641 and 2642 authorize payments from a conservatee’s estate to compensate a conservator and the conservator’s attorneys for services during the conservatorship. (Conservatorship of Cornelius (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1198, 1204.) Without citing those statutory provisions governing his request, Diop contends he spent three years and more than $18,000 in attorney fees establishing the need for a conservatorship of Bell and the probate court erred in failing to consider his December 2020 “supplemental petition” when denying his request for fees. There are numerous problems with Diop’s appeal. First, Diop failed to identify the December 2020 filing in his designation of record on appeal, and those documents are not included as a part of the record before us. Diop’s attachment of a copy of those documents, without any file stamp, to his appellate brief instead of filing a motion to augment the record was improper and did not cure the defect. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.155(a) [augmenting the record on appeal], 8.204(d) [attachments to briefs].) Second, even if Diop had properly moved to augment the record on appeal with a file-stamped copy of the supplemental papers and we had granted that motion, Diop still presented a wholly inadequate record for this court to consider his challenge to the probate court’s order. Although Diop complains the probate court failed to consider what he now describes as his “supplemental petition,” there is no basis for us to determine if that is true. Diop’s December 2020 filing was titled supplemental declarations in support of his petition. The court denied his petition. There is no indication the court failed to consider the

4 December 2020 supplemental declarations in support of the petition when it denied the petition. Third, Diop did not include his July 2019 petition in the record on appeal. Accordingly, we cannot tell whether his supplemental documents, assuming they were properly filed and considered, would have made any difference. Fourth, according to the docket, on September 15, 2020 the court denied a request for attorney fees that Diop had filed in March 2019, before his July 2019 request for fees and his December 2020 supplemental declarations. The docket also reflects an October 27, 2020 petition by the conservator to approve a settlement agreement and the court’s December 4, 2020 order approving that request, a ruling that may well have affected Diop’s entitlement to fees. None of this information was included in the record, let alone explained. In sum, there could be myriad reasons for the court’s order denying Diop’s July 2019 petition notwithstanding Diop’s filing of supplemental declarations in December 2020. It was Diop’s burden to provide an adequate record on appeal to demonstrate reversible error. (Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295- 1296 [to overcome presumption on appeal that an appealed judgment or order is presumed correct, appellant must provide an adequate record demonstrating reversible error]; Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 [“[i]t is well settled, of course, that a party challenging a judgment has the burden of proving reversible error by an adequate record”]; Randall v. Mousseau (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 929, 935 [same]; Lincoln Fountain Villas Homeowners Assn. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Ins. Co. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 999, 1003, fn. 1 [same].) Because Diop has failed

5 to provide such a record, we necessarily presume the order is correct and affirm. (See Ballard, at p. 574.)

DISPOSITION

The February 11, 2021 order is affirmed.

PERLUSS, P. J.

We concur:

SEGAL, J.

FEUER, J.

6