Marriage of Hiramanek CA3

BACKGROUND

The Estate’s brief purports to identify 31 errors in the trial court’s proceedings or ruling. However, some of the sections asserting error contain no authority for the legal propositions. Because these sections are not based on legal authority, they are without

1 Roda died during the pendency of this appeal, and Adil was substituted in as personal representative of Roda’s estate. As noted in our order dated December 7, 2020, Adil is not a party to this appeal in his individual capacity. Therefore, we will disregard any assertions to the contrary in the Estate’s brief, as well as any arguments that Adil was aggrieved by the trial court’s sanctions order in his individual capacity.

2 merit and do not require discussion. (People v. Gidney (1937) 10 Cal.2d 138, 142-143 (Gidney).) Also, some sections of the argument relate to matters other than the sanctions order. We will confine our analysis to the sections of argument free of these defects. We will also condense the analysis by treating similar contentions together. The sanctions imposed against Roda were based on Family Code section 271, which provides: “Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, the court may…