Marriage of Carlisle CA3

Filed 1/6/21 Marriage of Carlisle CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (El Dorado) ----

In re the Marriage of CAROL and WILLIAM C086346 CARLISLE.

CAROL CARLISLE, (Super. Ct. No. PFL20150037)

Respondent,

v.

WILLIAM CARLISLE,

Appellant.

The parties were married in 1991, separated in 2014, and plaintiff thereafter commenced marriage dissolution proceedings. Defendant, an attorney representing himself, appeals from the judgment, raising issues addressed to the enforceability of a postnuptial agreement; his separate property claims; the trial court’s division of community property; the parties’ post-separation, pre-trial debts; spousal support; attorney fees, costs, and sanctions; and additional contentions. However, defendant has

1

forfeited his arguments by failing to identify them in proper headings and support them with citation to the record and meaningful legal analysis, and his briefing is insufficient to carry his burden of demonstrating error on appeal. We affirm. DISCUSSION “ ‘A judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct. All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown. This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’ ” (Denham v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) “It is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate the existence of reversible error.” (Del Real v. City of Riverside (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 761, 766.) “To demonstrate error, appellant must present meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and citations to facts in the record that support the claim of error. [Citations.] When a point is asserted without argument and authority for the proposition, ‘it is deemed to be without foundation and requires no discussion by the reviewing court.’ [Citations.] Hence, conclusory claims of error will fail.” (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408.)