GEORGE ROGER SIEGEL v. JACK ROBERT SIEGEL (2010)

Law Offices of Geordan Goebal and Geordan Goebal for Objector and Respondent.

----------

This ongoing dispute between twin brothers, petitioner George Roger Siegel (Roger), and objector Jack Robert Siegel (Robert), involves several parcels of real property (the property) that were once part of their parents' estate.¹  Roger's briefs fail to comply with the requirements of appellate procedure and the appeals lack substantive merit.   Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals on our own motion.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In March 2008, Roger filed the instant probate petitions, in an attempt to circumvent vesting of title to the property in Robert.   Robert demurred.   The trial court sustained the demurrers with leave to amend, provided Roger omitted the real properties from the petitions.   Roger failed to amend, and the probate petitions were dismissed.   Roger filed the instant appeals.

DISCUSSION

As a procedural matter, the appeal fails to comply with the requirements of appellate procedure.   Roger's opening briefs fail to identify the purportedly erroneous order from which he appeals, or to provide a statement of facts or a single citation to the record.   It is the appellant's duty to refer us to the portions of the record supporting his contentions on appeal.  “When an appellant's brief makes no reference to the pages of the record where a point can be found, [we] need not search through the record in an effort to discover the point purportedly made.”  (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 406.)   An appellant who fails to make such references in connection with points of error urged on appeal, may be treated as having forfeited those points.   (Dietz v. Meisenheimer & Herron (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 771, 799.) ³

Second, Roger fails to support his bare assertions of error with a statement of facts, let alone reasoned argument or citations to appropriate legal authorities.   As such, Roger has fallen far short of bearing his burden to overcome the presumption of correctness afforded the trial court's rulings on appeal.   It is a basic rule of appellate procedure that “[e]rror is never presumed, but must be affirmatively shown.”  (Richard v. Richard (1954) 123 Cal.App.2d 900, 902.)   This requirement applies equally to appellants acting without counsel.  (McComber v. Wells (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 512, 522-523.)   To that end, if an appellant fails to support an asserted point with reasoned analysis and citations to pertinent authority, the appellate court may treat the point as having been waived and pass on it without consideration.   (People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 793;  EnPalm, LLC v. Teitler (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 770, 775;  People v. Doughtery (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 278, 282-283.)   Roger's briefs lack a cogent description of the action, and present no argument which relates to the facts.   In short, the briefs contain nothing more than a random recital of grievances, unconnected to any comprehensible statement of facts.   This court is unable to determine what Roger's legal assertions are or what facts support those assertions.   (Bernard v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1203, 1205.)

Moreover, to the extent we can surmise what Roger's arguments might be, the appeal lacks substantive merit.   The crux of the dispute between Roger and his brother relates to the real property once owned by their parents.   Robert has had fee simple title to that property since January 2006, and Roger's numerous appeals of that judgment have been unsuccessful.   These probate actions may not be used to evade final judgment.  (See Ricard v. Grobstein, Goldman, Stevenson, Siegel, LeVine & Mangel (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 157, 162 [plaintiff's attempt to pursue second action solely to circumvent trial court's prior adverse ruling is a sham and violates one final judgment rule].)   This appeal lacks merit and must be dismissed.

In sum, an appeal, such as this, may be deemed to have been abandoned if the opening brief fails to raise a claim of reversible error and/or fails to articulate pertinent argument and present authorities on points raised.   In In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, the Supreme Court held such an appeal may be dismissed on the court's own motion:  “A ‘reviewing court has inherent power, on motion or its own motion, to dismiss an appeal which it cannot or should not hear and determine.’  [Citation.]  An appealed-from judgment or order is presumed correct.  [Citation.]  Hence, the appellant must make a challenge.   In so doing, he must raise claims of reversible error or other defect [citation], and ‘present argument and authority on each point made’ [citations].   If he does not, he may, in the court's discretion, be deemed to have abandoned his appeal.  [Citation.]”  (Id. at p. 994;  County of Kern v. Dillier (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1424-1425.)   Dismissal is the appropriate result here.   With no error or other defect claimed against the unspecified orders appealed from, we are presented with no reason to proceed to the merits of Roger's unraised “points,” and no reason to reverse the orders in question.   The appeals are dismissed.⁴

DISPOSITION

The appeals are dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

We concur:

FOOTNOTES

FN1. On our own motion, we consolidated the appeals for purposes of this order..  FN1. On our own motion, we consolidated the appeals for purposes of this order.

FN2. Under Evidence Code sections 452, subdivision (d) and 459, subdivision (a), we are authorized to take judicial notice of the records of any court of this state and are required to take judicial notice of all matters properly judicially noticed by the trial court.   We may also take judicial notice of appropriate matters not considered by the trial court.   (See Haworth v. Superior Court (2010) 50 Cal.4th 372.)   We therefore take judicial notice of the records and files of the prior actions involving Roger, Robert and the property that the trial court judicially noticed.   We also take judicial notice of our own records and files relating to these same cases on appeal..  FN2. Under Evidence Code sections 452, subdivision (d) and 459, subdivision (a), we are authorized to take judicial notice of the records of any court of this state and are required to take judicial notice of all matters properly judicially noticed by the trial court.   We may also take judicial notice of appropriate matters not considered by the trial court.   (See Haworth v. Superior Court (2010) 50 Cal.4th 372.)   We therefore take judicial notice of the records and files of the prior actions involving Roger, Robert and the property that the trial court judicially noticed.   We also take judicial notice of our own records and files relating to these same cases on appeal.

FN3. Roger's briefs improperly attempt to incorporate by reference documents and, presumably, arguments from proceedings below or advanced in other appellate proceedings.   These references are either entirely unsupported by citations to the record or may refer to documents filed in the trial court or another appeal, but not made part of this appellate record.   We have therefore disregarded such assertions.  (Berg v. Traylor (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 809, 812, fn. 2;  see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204.).  FN3. Roger's briefs improperly attempt to incorporate by reference documents and, presumably, arguments from proceedings below or advanced in other appellate proceedings.   These references are either entirely unsupported by citations to the record or may refer to documents filed in the trial court or another appeal, but not made part of this appellate record.   We have therefore disregarded such assertions.  (Berg v. Traylor (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 809, 812, fn. 2;  see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204.)

FN4. Our determination renders it unnecessary to rule on Robert's motions to dismiss, which are dismissed as moot.   Similarly, Roger's request for judicial notice (filed July 15, 2008), and what appears to be a request to stay proceedings (filed September 18, 2008), are also dismissed..  FN4. Our determination renders it unnecessary to rule on Robert's motions to dismiss, which are dismissed as moot.   Similarly, Roger's request for judicial notice (filed July 15, 2008), and what appears to be a request to stay proceedings (filed September 18, 2008), are also dismissed.

JOHNSON, J.

ROTHSCHILD, Acting P. J. CHANEY, J.