Kendrick v. Wyckoff CA1/3

Filed 3/21/23 Kendrick v. Wyckoff CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

In the matter of the Taillefer Living Trust Dated August 19, 1999,

EDWARD KENDRICK, as Administrator, etc., et al. A165494 Plaintiffs and Respondents, (Mendocino County v. Super. Ct. No. 22PR00009) JOSEPH THOMAS WYCKOFF, Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Joseph Wyckoff, in propria persona, appeals from a probate court order, which confirmed the validity of the First Amendment to the Taillefer Living Trust dated January 6, 2015 (“Trust”) and specifically found Wyckoff’s time to contest the Trust had expired. Among his many contentions, Wyckoff argues that the court erred in ruling his contest was untimely. He contends the Probate Code section 16061.7 notification issued by the trustee was

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion pursuant to California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1.

1

incomplete and invalid and thus failed to trigger the period for him to bring an action to challenge the Trust. We cannot conclude the trial court erred. As a preliminary matter, we note that while Wyckoff is representing himself, he is not exempt from compliance with the rules governing appeals. (McComber v. Wells (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 512, 523.) A self-represented party is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater, consideration than litigants represented by counsel. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1245–1247.) “A judgment or order of a lower court is presumed to be correct on appeal, and all intendments and presumptions are indulged in favor of its correctness.” (In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133.) “[T]he burden is on an appellant to demonstrate, on the basis of the record presented to the appellate court, that the trial court committed an error that justifies reversal of the judgment.” (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608–609 (Jameson); Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) “It is well settled, of course, that a party challenging a judgment has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record.” (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574.) Generally, appellants in ordinary civil proceedings must provide a reporter’s transcript. (Foust v. San Jose Construction Co. Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 181, 186.) In lieu of a reporter’s transcript, an appellant may submit an agreed or settled statement. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.137; Leslie v. Roe (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 104, 108.) “Where no reporter’s transcript has been provided and no error is apparent on the face of the existing appellate record, the judgment must be conclusively presumed correct as to all evidentiary matters. To put it another way, it is presumed that the unreported trial testimony would demonstrate the absence of error. [Citation.] The effect of this rule is that an appellant