Rybolt v. Riley CA3

Filed 1/26/21 Rybolt v. Riley CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

COURTNEY E. RYBOLT, C087877

Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 10FL05692)

v.

JAMES E. RILEY IV,

Appellant.

James Riley IV (appellant), appeals from a court order awarding attorney fee sanctions under Family Code section 271 because it did not consider his ability to pay when imposing the sanctions. Appellant’s claim is not supported by the record. Courtney Rybolt (respondent) contends the trial court’s order was correct and appellant’s appeal is frivolous. We affirm the trial court’s order and deny respondent’s request for sanctions on appeal.

1

LEGAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND On appeal, we must presume the trial court’s judgment is correct. (See Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) Accordingly, we adopt all intendments and inferences to affirm the judgment or order unless the record expressly contradicts them. (See Brewer v. Simpson (1960) 53 Cal.2d 567, 583.) It is the burden of the party challenging a judgment on appeal to provide an adequate record to assess error. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1140-1141.) The appellate record here does not include a reporter’s transcript. We must, therefore, treat this as an appeal “ ‘on the judgment roll.’ ” (Kucker v. Kucker (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 90, 93.) Accordingly, we are required to conclusively presume the evidence admitted at trial is ample to sustain the trial court’s findings; our review is limited to determining whether any error “ ‘appears on the face of the record.’ ”1 (Id. at p. 93; Nielsen v. Gibson (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 324, 324-325.) Here, the limited record we have establishes that following a two-day evidentiary hearing in July 2018, the trial court issued written findings and an order ruling on issues related to custody and visitation of the parties’ minor child and respondent’s request for attorney fees. Relative to the order for attorney fees, the trial court found appellant “has frustrated the policy of the law to promote settlement of litigation and, where possible reduce the cost of litigation by encouraging cooperation between the parties; and [¶] . . . [t]he amount of attorney’s fees does not impose an[] unreasonable financial burden on [appellant].” The court then ordered appellant to pay to respondent $5,000 in attorney