Marriage of Haynes CA1/5

Filed 3/17/26 Marriage of Haynes CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

In re the Marriage of DAVID and TELETHA HAYNES.

DAVID HAYNES, Respondent, A173440 v. TELETHA HAYNES, (Solano County Appellant. Super. Ct. No. FFL154019)

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Teletha Haynes appeals a qualified domestic relations order arising from a postjudgment hearing on the division of her federal Thrift Savings Plan retirement benefits. We affirm the order for failures to provide an adequate record for review and supported legal argument. BACKGROUND In May 2023 the Solano Superior Court entered a judgment dissolving David and Teletha Haynes’s nearly 28-year marriage.2 (In re Marriage of

1 Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1; Ct. App., First Dist., Local Rules of Ct.,

rule 19. 2 We use first names for ease of reference. (See In re Marriage of Smith (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 469, 475–476, fn. 1.)

1

Haynes (Mar. 17, 2026, A172255) [nonpub. opn.].)3 Besides dissolving the marriage, the judgment apparently orders that part of Teletha’s benefits in the Federal Employees Retirement System is subject to equal division of the community estate by the standard mechanism: a qualified domestic relations order. (In re Marriage of Haynes, supra, A172255.) In March 2025 the court held one of several hearings on David’s request for order to enforce the judgment’s division of retirement benefits. David had counsel; Teletha did not. After the hearing, the court filed David’s proposed qualified domestic relations order as to Teletha’s federal Thrift Savings Plan benefits (TSP QDRO), which Teletha appeals, still representing herself, arguing the order’s division differs from the judgment’s. Though the appellate record includes the TSP QDRO, it does not include the judgment or a record of the March 2025 oral proceedings, which were not reported. DISCUSSION A reviewing court generally presumes an appealed order is correct, and it is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate that the trial court committed reversible error based on an adequate record. (In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133; Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608–609 [“the record presented to the appellate court”].) To meet this burden, the Appellate Rules (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1 et seq.) obligate the appellant to support each contention in the opening brief by argument under a separate heading with citations to legal authority and facts in the appellate record. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B), (C).) If the record is inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the order is affirmed.