Marriage of Monterroso CA4/1

Filed 4/9/25 Marriage of Monterroso CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re the Marriage of FANNY and KRISTOPHER MONTERROSO. D083893 FANNY MONTERROSO,

Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 17FL013408C)

v.

KRISTOPHER MONTERROSO,

Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Terrie E. Roberts, Judge. Affirmed. Kristopher Steven Monterroso, in pro. per., for Appellant. No appearance for Respondent. Self-represented litigant and appellant Kristopher Monterroso (Monterroso) appeals a family court judgment of dissolution. He contends: (1) respondent (his former wife) failed to disclose significant details of rental income from her property in Florida; (2) the court erroneously decided the parties’ separation date; (3) the court refused to consider an expert financial

evaluation and a motion for mistrial; (4) the court’s rulings were prejudicial and warrant reconsideration; (5) respondent gained unauthorized access to his e-mail and deliberately withheld information about asset ownership, especially stocks; (6) the court erroneously denied his request for spousal support; (7) this court should engage in a “reevaluation of the decisions made” to address respondent’s fraudulent actions and infringements; (8) respondent breached her fiduciary duty to act in good faith and fair dealing; and (9) the court lacked impartiality and denied him due process. We affirm. DISCUSSION We resolve this appeal by relying on general appellate rules of practice and procedure. Each brief must “[s]upport any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page number of the record where the matter appears.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C).) “If a party fails to support an argument with the necessary citations to the record, the argument will be deemed waived.” (LA Investments, LLC v. Spix (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 1044, 1061; accord, In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408.) Any ambiguity in the record is resolved in favor of the judgment. (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608.) On appeal, this court starts with a presumption that the judgment or order being appealed is correct; the burden is on the appellant to affirmatively show error. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 [“ ‘All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support [the judgment or order] on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown’ ”].) As the appellant, Monterroso is further obligated to demonstrate not only error in the rulings he challenges, but how the error prejudiced him. (See Cassim v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 780, 800-802; Paterno v. State of California (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 68, 105-106 [“[O]ur duty to examine