JEFFREY SCOTT KREITMAN v. GREGORY ERIC KREITMAN (2011)

State Controller's Office, Richard J. Chivaro and Gary D. Hori for Intervener and Respondent.

* * * * * * *

In this appeal, appellant Jeffrey Scott Kreitman argues that the California State Controller (Controller) failed to perfect a lien on property, purportedly deeded to him and his brother.   The trial court found in favor of the Controller, and appellant demonstrates no error in the judgment.   We affirm.

FACTS

Our record does not include the complaint.   It contains the Controller's opposition to Kreitman's motion to void the Controller's lien (Opposition) and the judgment.   No other relevant document is included in our record.

A quitclaim deed signed March 19, 1979, by Frank B. Kreitman, Jr. (Deed) is attached to the Opposition.   The Deed purports to transfer “Lots 22 and 23 of Tract no. 4373 as per map recorded in Book 47 page 96 of Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of Los Angeles, County, State of California” (the Property) to Gregory Eric Kreitman and Jeffrey Scott Kreitman as tenants in common.   The parties dispute whether the Deed actually transferred the property to Gregory and Jeffrey.   The parties agree that Frank B. Kreitman, Jr., had not paid all of his taxes due to the state, and that as a result the Controller placed a lien on the Property.

It appears that appellant attempted to persuade the trial court that because the Deed transferred the Property, the Controller's lien on the Property was invalid.   Appellant assumes the lien was placed after the Deed was signed.   The trial court must have rejected appellant's arguments because it rendered judgment in favor of the Controller in the amount of $168,009, plus interest.¹  Jeffrey Scott Kreitman appealed, designating a clerk's transcript with only limited documents.

DISCUSSION

Generally, a judgment is “ ‘ “presumed to be correct on appeal, and all intendments and presumptions are indulged in favor of its correctness.” ’ ”   (State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Pietak (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 600, 610.)   An appellant bears the burden on appeal of providing an adequate record to assess error.  (Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295–1296.)   When an appellant fails to provide an adequate record to evaluate a claimed error, his claim must be resolved against him.  (Ibid.) These standards on appeal are dispositive of this case.

Here, appellant argues the Deed was sufficient to transfer the property in 1979, and the Property therefore is not subject to the Controller's lien, which appellant assumes was placed after 1979.   Appellant's argument is based on a description of property ownership, none of which is supported by the record on appeal.²  The only evidence in the record is the Deed. Without additional information, this court cannot evaluate whether the Deed was “flawed and ineffective” as the Controller argued, and as the trial court apparently found when it rendered judgment.   Appellant's entire argument on appeal is based on unsupported speculation.   Appellant therefore fails to demonstrate any error in the judgment, which we must presume is correct.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.   The Controller shall have costs on appeal.

We concur:

FOOTNOTES

FN1. The court made numerous other awards, none of which is challenged on appeal..  FN1. The court made numerous other awards, none of which is challenged on appeal.

FN2. Appellant states that Commercial Wholesale Electric Company took title to the Property.   Appellant states that Commercial Wholesale Electric was composed of a partnership, in which Frank B. Kreitman, Jr., held a one-half interest.   Appellant states that the partnership was wound up and the property was transferred to a corporation in 1957.   Then, when Kreitman, Jr.'s partner died in 1962, somehow Kreitman, Jr., owned the Property once owned by the partnership and transferred it under the Deed. Appellant also states that Frank B. Kreitman, Jr., was the trustee of the Kreitman Trust, and the Deed “transferred the Kreitman's trust's one-half interest in the [P]roperty․”The only citation to the record in appellant's opening brief is to a portion of the Opposition, quoting another brief that is not included in our record.   Appellant cites to no evidence demonstrating the ownership of the Property at any relevant time..  FN2. Appellant states that Commercial Wholesale Electric Company took title to the Property.   Appellant states that Commercial Wholesale Electric was composed of a partnership, in which Frank B. Kreitman, Jr., held a one-half interest.   Appellant states that the partnership was wound up and the property was transferred to a corporation in 1957.   Then, when Kreitman, Jr.'s partner died in 1962, somehow Kreitman, Jr., owned the Property once owned by the partnership and transferred it under the Deed. Appellant also states that Frank B. Kreitman, Jr., was the trustee of the Kreitman Trust, and the Deed “transferred the Kreitman's trust's one-half interest in the [P]roperty․”The only citation to the record in appellant's opening brief is to a portion of the Opposition, quoting another brief that is not included in our record.   Appellant cites to no evidence demonstrating the ownership of the Property at any relevant time.

FLIER, J.

RUBIN, Acting P.J. GRIMES, J.