Marriage of Huang and Yang CA1/1

Filed 6/5/25 Marriage of Huang and Yang CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

In re the Marriage of ANITA YUAN YUN HUANG and WEN HUA YANG. A169837 ANITA YUAN YUN HUANG, (San Francisco City & Appellant, County v. Super. Ct. No. FDI-16- 786194) WEN HUA YANG, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION1 This is an appeal from an order following a long-cause hearing on property and support issues in this divorce proceeding instituted by appellant Anita Yuan Yun Huang. The trial court eventually issued a 26-page statement of decision and order addressing claims for reimbursement, claims pertaining to the trucking business the parties operated during their marriage, claims pertaining to the family residence, claims pertaining to specific personal property, and claims pertaining to spousal and child support. With respect to a number of these claims the trial court pointed out

We resolve this case by memorandum opinion under California 1

Standards of Judicial Administration section 8.1.

1

appellant presented no supporting documentation, for example, as to her pre- marriage earnings and bank accounts, or insufficient documentation, for example, as to the parties’ post-marriage bank accounts. The court also found appellant’s testimony not credible in some key respects, for example, her testimony concerning the extent of her use of separate funds to pay for alleged community debts and obligations. Appellant challenges most of the trial court’s rulings. What she has not provided, however, is a brief that comports with the California Rules of Court and demonstrates, with proper citations to the record and relevant legal authority, that the trial court erred or abused its discretion in any respect. (See United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 142, 153 [“ ‘In order to demonstrate error, an appellant must supply the reviewing court with some cogent argument supported by legal analysis and citation to the record.’ ”]; WFG National Title Ins. Co. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 881, 894 [same].) “Rule 8.204(a)(1)(C) of the California Rules of Court requires all appellate briefs to ‘[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.’ It is well established that ‘ “[i]f a party fails to support an argument with the necessary citations to the record, . . . the argument [will be] deemed to have been waived. [Citation.]” ’ [Citation.] This rule applies to matters referenced at any point in the brief, not just in the statement of facts.” (Conservatorship of Kevin A. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 1241, 1253.) Accordingly, even if the factual and procedural sections of a brief contain some citations to the record on appeal, this does not “not cure the failure to cite evidence in the argument section of the brief, and we will not pick and choose the portions of the brief in the statement of facts that we may