Bird

discussion of the rules of evidence, or why Ms. Bird’s summary was deserving of more weight than Mr. Bird’s. The trial court denied the request for arrears, finding the “tabulation that I’m getting from [Mr. Bird] is considerably more credible than the one offered by [Ms. Bird]. The figures used by [Mr. Bird] have better corroboration and detail. [¶] Now, with respect to [Ms. Bird’s] years of [not] asserting that arrears were owed, I don’t use that fact to find waiver. But I use that fact as circumstantial evidence supporting the position that [Mr. Bird] does not owe arrears.” Ms. Bird timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

Ms. Bird’s appellate brief does not conform with the rules of court. Her brief only describes her version of the facts and does not discuss the facts in support of the court’s ruling. She does not provide a fair summary of the substance of the court’s ruling. (City of Riverside v. Horspool (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 670, 674, fn. 3.) There is very little relevant legal authority cited in her brief. (People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 793.) Failure to comply with the basic rules of appellate procedure waives any claim of error on appeal. (See, e.g., Duarte v. Chino…