Serpa v. Berchtold CA5

Filed 9/14/20 Serpa v. Berchtold CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

JAMES A. SERPA, SR. et al., F077010

Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and (Super. Ct. No. CV58123) Appellants,

v. OPINION RICHARD BERCHTOLD, as Co-trustee, etc. et al.,

Defendants, Cross-complainants and Respondents;

DANNIE LEE BERCHTOLD,

Defendant, Cross-complainant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County. Kevin M. Seibert, Judge. James A. Serpa, Sr. and Kathleen B. Serpa, in pro. per.; Law Office of Nicco Capozzi and Nicco Capozzi for Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and Appellants. Dannie Berchtold, in pro. per.; Seibert Bautista Montoya, Shannon Seibert and Joe Bautista for Defendants, Cross-complainants and Respondents. -ooOoo-

Appellants appeal from the judgment entered after a court trial. They contend the judgment should be reversed because the trial court clerk could not locate the trial exhibits and transmit them to this court for the appeal. Because the appellant bears the burden of providing an adequate record for meaningful review, we conclude it was appellants’ responsibility, in the absence of the original trial exhibits, to attempt to reconstruct the exhibits. Absent a showing that the exhibits could not be adequately reconstructed and that appellants could not establish the trial court’s alleged error without the exhibits, appellants have not demonstrated grounds for reversal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The clerk’s transcript on appeal is sparse. It contains only the judgment, a notice of entry of judgment, the notice of appeal, a post-judgment order awarding attorney fees to some respondents, and a designation of the record on appeal. The designation of record did not identify any exhibits to be included in the transcript. The reporter’s transcript indicates there were “15 or so causes of action” in the first amended complaint, which appellants were pursuing. The action was based on five secured loans made by respondents to appellants. Appellants raised an issue of usury; they also accused at least one of the respondents of interfering with their prior bankruptcy proceeding, causing the loss of the residence that was the security for the loans. Respondents cross-complained. After a five-day court trial, judgment was entered on the complaint and the cross-complaint in favor of all respondents except Dannie Berchtold in his individual capacity. As to Dannie Berchtold individually, appellants and Berchtold were to take nothing on the complaint and cross-complaint. Appellants appeal from the judgment. DISCUSSION Appellants’ opening brief does not identify any error in the prejudgment trial court proceedings. It raises only one issue: missing exhibits. Appellants moved to augment