Kenner

BACKGROUND

We treat this case as an appeal on the judgment roll, because it reaches us based on a clerk’s transcript. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.832 (further references to rules are to the Cal. Rules of Court; hereafter Rule or Rules); cf. Dumas v. Stark (1961) 56 Cal.2d 673, 674; Allen v. Toten (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1079, 1082-1083.) Because the case is presented in this posture, we presume that the trial court's findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, and its conclusions of law are binding upon us unless error appears on the face of the record. (Bond v. Pulsar Video Productions (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 918, 924.) On this extremely limited appellate record, we cannot discern the precise nature of the parties’ dispute. Neither the complaint nor the cross-complaint appears in the record. Powell’s answer to the cross-complaint identifies the causes of action raised by Kenner, and states various affirmative defenses. The cross-complaint was tried to the court; the trial was unreported. Kenner, Powell, and cross-defendant Katanya Maina testified. Fifteen documentary exhibits were admitted into evidence; four appear in the record on appeal. At the close of trial,…