Marriage of Navarro CA4/1

Filed 8/7/25 Marriage of Navarro CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 IVONNE G. and ARMANDO E. NAVARRO. D085561 IVONNE G. NAVARRO,

Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 20FL006540S)

v.

ARMANDO E. NAVARRO,

Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Leonard N. Trinh, Judge. Affirmed. Ivonne G. Navarro, in pro. per., for Appellant. Lopez & Wilmert and Roxanne F. Lopez for Respondent.

I INTRODUCTION In this marital dissolution proceeding, Ivonne G. Navarro appeals a family court order awarding her ex-husband, Armando E. Navarro, the full

amount of his California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CALPERS) retirement account and $10,000 in attorney fees and costs. The court based its order on a finding that Ivonne breached her fiduciary duty to Armando by

forging his signature on a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO).1 Proceeding in propria persona, Ivonne presents a variety of arguments on appeal that are unrelated to the challenged order and/or unsupported by legal authorities or citations to the appellate record. Insofar as she purports to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the challenged order, she has waived her argument by failing to set forth the material evidence relevant to her claim of error in her appellate briefs. Therefore, we affirm. II BACKGROUND Ivonne and Armando married in 1982 and separated in 2020. They had no children together. On August 12, 2020, Ivonne filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage. On July 6, 2023, the family court entered a judgment dissolving the parties’ marital status only. On October 25, 2023, the court held a one-day trial on reserved issues, including property division, spousal support, and attorney fees. On November 30, 2023, the court entered a judgment on the reserved issues: • The court found that Ivonne breached the fiduciary duty she owed to Armando by transferring half of the community’s interest in the marital residence to a third party without Armando’s consent. The court