Marriage of Howard and Meeks CA2/2

Filed 8/5/14 Marriage of Howard and Meeks CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

In re Marriage of DARYL HOWARD and B250646 MONICA JO MEEKS. __________________________________ (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BD060937) DARYL HOWARD MEEKS,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

MONICA JO MEEKS,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Patrick A. Cathcart, Judge. Affirmed.

Daryl Howard Meeks, in pro. per, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Monica Jo Meeks, in pro. per, for Defendant and Respondent.

_________________________

In a confusing and largely unintelligible brief, plaintiff and appellant Daryl Howard Meeks (Daryl)1 appeals from a trial court order following a judgment of dissolution of marriage. He seems to contend that the trial court erred in its award of a portion of Daryl’s pension/retirement plan to Monica Jo Meeks (Monica). Because Daryl did not meet his burden on appeal, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Daryl and Monica were married. According to the judgment, entered April 1, 1993, their marital status ended on October 19, 1992. Also according to the terms of the judgment, Monica was entitled to a portion of Daryl’s retirement benefits. Although not explained in the appellate record, something prompted Daryl to file a request for an order of modification on June 17, 2013.2 The trial court heard evidence and, on July 17, 2013, denied his request. This timely appeal ensued. DISCUSSION The major problem with Daryl’s appeal lies in his opening brief. As another court observed in describing a similarly inadequate brief, “[i]ndeed, this document is strongly reminiscent of those magazine puzzles of yesteryear where the reader was challenged to ‘guess what is wrong with this picture.’” (People v. Dougherty (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 278, 280.) It seems that Daryl is arguing that the judgment is vague. But, he offers no legal authority in support of this assertion. Daryl also appears to be claiming that all of his