Hernandez v. Alvarez CA2/5

California Court of Appeal Jan 14, 2025 No. B330404Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the appellant failed to provide an adequate record of the oral proceedings to support his claims of error on appeal.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in its interpretation of the parties' contracts and its award of damages.
Whether the appellant met his burden of providing an adequate record to overcome the presumption that the judgment is correct.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Because the record is inadequate to allow review on appeal, we affirm.”

“A judgment or order of the lower court is presumed to be correct; the appellant has the burden of overcoming this presumption by affirmatively showing error on appeal by an adequate record.”

“Without a transcript, we must assume the extrinsic evidence presented at trial supported the trial court’s interpretation of the agreements between the parties and the court’s finding that Alvarez breached the purchase agreement.”

Filed 1/14/25 Hernandez v. Alvarez CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

FERNANDO HERNANDEZ et al., B330404

Plaintiffs and Respondents, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. KC069491)

GEORGE ALVAREZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Thomas C. Falls, Judge. Affirmed. George Alvarez, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. Shaumyan & Derbarseghian, Alfred Shaumyan and Aren Derbarseghian for Plaintiffs and Respondents. ________________________

Defendant and appellant George Alvarez appeals from a judgment following a bench trial in favor of plaintiffs and respondents Fernando Hernandez and Maria De Jesus Hernandez in this action arising out of a real property purchase agreement. Because the record is inadequate to allow review on appeal, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In June 2018, the plaintiffs filed the operative third amended complaint against Alvarez and others alleging several causes of action, including breach of contract, misrepresentation, fraud, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs attached a purchase agreement executed in 2005. In July 2019, Alvarez filed an amended answer to the complaint. Among other issues, he asserted the affirmative defense of novation, alleging that the parties substituted a new agreement for the one alleged in the complaint, and the Hernandezes were the ones who breached the new agreement. In May 2022, the matter was called for a jury trial, but Alvarez failed to appear. The court entered a default and a default judgment against Alvarez, but later set them aside based on error. On February 6, 2023, Alvarez filed a motion for judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 631.8, raising several arguments based on a 2016 agreement between the parties. On February 7, 2023, the matter was called for trial again. No reporter’s transcript or settled statement is part of the record on appeal. The minute order reflects that there was no appearance for Alvarez. Fernando testified, and several exhibits

Hernandez v. Alvarez CA2/5

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

GEORGE ALVAREZ,

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

MOOR, J.

HOFFSTADT, P. J.

KIM (D.), J.

AI Brief