Marriage of Hoxie CA4/1

California Court of Appeal Nov 24, 2025 No. D083731Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's order awarding sanctions and attorney fees, holding that the appellant failed to demonstrate error due to an inadequate appellate record and that his claims regarding improper service were meritless.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in its service requirements under Family Code section 215.
Whether the appellant was properly served with the request for order and subsequent filings.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a continuance or accepting late-filed papers.
Whether the appellant demonstrated that the trial court relied on false representations by opposing counsel.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Hoxie has failed to show he was not properly served, in part because he has not provided a sufficient record on appeal.”

“The inadequate appellate record also precludes us from finding error with respect to counsel’s purportedly false representations.”

“[I]t is a fundamental principle of appellate procedure that a trial court judgment is ordinarily presumed to be correct”

Filed 11/24/25 Marriage of Hoxie 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Marriage of SCOTT HOXIE and NICHOLE DUARTE-HOXIE. D083731 SCOTT HOXIE,

Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 20FL000259N) v.

NICHOLE DUARTE-HOXIE,

Respondent.

APPEAL from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Daniel Segura, Judge. Affirmed. Scott Hoxie, in pro. per., for Appellant. Nichole Duarte-Hoxie, in pro. per., for Respondent.

Scott Hoxie (Hoxie) appeals a postjudgment sanctions and attorney fee order in a marital dissolution case against his former spouse, Nichole Duarte- Hoxie (Duarte). Hoxie argues he was not properly served with Duarte’s request for order (RFO) papers and that Duarte’s attorney made false representations to the family court. Hoxie has failed to show he was not properly served, in part because he has not provided a sufficient record on appeal. The inadequate appellate record also precludes us from finding error with respect to counsel’s purportedly false representations. Accordingly, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Based on an exceedingly limited appellate record we discern that in October 2023, Duarte filed an RFO seeking: (1) entry of a stipulated judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6; (2) sanctions against

Hoxie under Family Code1 section 271, subdivision (a); and (3) attorney’s fees under section 2030. The trial court register of actions notes that Duarte filed a proof of service on October 23, 2023, though it is not clear from the entry what was served, or on whom. On November 21, 2023, the court conducted an RFO hearing and family resolution conference. A judgment of dissolution was entered, and Hoxie’s attorney filed a notice of withdrawal that same day. The court continued the hearing on sanctions and fees to January 16, 2024. On January 8, 2024, Duarte filed a “supplemental declaration,” an “amended” lodgment of exhibits, and (possibly) another declaration. Hoxie apparently did not file anything in advance of the hearing.

Marriage of Hoxie CA4/1

AI Brief

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

NICHOLE DUARTE-HOXIE,

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

KELETY, J.

RUBIN, J.

AI Brief