Mercado v. JP Morgan Chase Bank CA1/1

Filed 7/18/16 Mercado v. JP Morgan Chase Bank CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

JANET MERCADO et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, A146813 v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. et al., (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. HG14748880) Defendants and Respondents.

Plaintiffs Janet Mercado and Jay Fajardo, acting in propria persona here and in the court below, filed this appeal after the trial court issued its order sustaining defendants’1 demurrer to their first amended complaint (FAC) without leave to amend and entered judgment dismissing their lawsuit. On appeal, plaintiffs contend that defendants “illegally, deceptively and/or otherwise unjustly, qualified Plaintiff/Appellants for a loan which they knew or should have known that she could not qualify for or afford.” As set forth below, plaintiffs have failed to present an intelligible legal argument supported by citation to an appellate record, and we therefore will affirm.

1 The defendants and respondents in this appeal are Nationstar Mortgage LLC, ReconTrust Company, N.A., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee for Holders of SAMI II Trust 2006-AR1, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-AR1, and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

BACKGROUND Because plaintiffs have not provided this court with a proper record on appeal, we will not set forth the factual background of this case in any detail. The specific facts are known to the parties and, as will be seen, are largely irrelevant to our disposition of this matter. DISCUSSION As noted above, defendants prevailed below after their demurrer to the FAC was sustained without leave to amend. On appeal, plaintiffs elected to provide the record by filing an appendix under California Rules of Court, rule 8.124.2 That rule specifies that an appendix must contain all items required by rule 8.122(b)(1), as well as “[a]ny item listed in rule 8.122(b)(3) that is necessary for proper consideration of the issues, including, for an appellant’s appendix, any item that the appellant should reasonably assume the respondent will rely on[.]” (Rule 8.124(b)(1)(A), (B).) The contents of the appendix must be arranged chronologically. (Rules 8.124(d)(1), 8.144(a)(1)(C).) Plaintiffs have not followed these rules. Their appendix merely contains several unnumbered pages of various documents that appear to relate to their mortgage. Most critically, they do not provide a copy of the FAC or defendants’ demurrer.3 “An appealed judgment or challenged ruling is presumed correct.” (Bullock v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 655, 685 (Bullock).) Thus, the “appellant has the burden to show error.” (Bell v. H.F. Cox, Inc. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 62, 80.) “An appellant must affirmatively demonstrate error through reasoned argument, citation to the appellate record, and discussion of legal authority.” (Bullock, at p. 685.) A reviewing court is “not required to search the record to ascertain whether it contains support for [the appellant’s] contentions.” (Mansell v. Board of Administration (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 539, 545 (Mansell).)