Sidney v. Riley CA1/2

Filed 6/22/23 Sidney v. Riley CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

CHARLES SIDNEY, JR., Plaintiff and Respondent, A165046 v. DANA RILEY, (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG17849697) Defendant and Appellant.

Dana Riley has filed a notice of appeal from an undated order she describes as “pursuant to 904.1 order/judgment after 664 motion to enforce settlement denied.” The record contains a minute order entered on April 4, 2022, denying Riley’s motion “to enter judgment against plaintiff Charles Sidney, Jr. pursuant to the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement.” We liberally construe the notice of appeal to be taken from that order. No respondent’s brief has been filed. We affirm the order. DISCUSSION The nature of this controversy is unclear, and the appellate record is sparse. Excluding the register of actions, the clerk’s transcript is only 15 pages, and the April 4, 2022 minute order is the only substantive document in it. The order reflects the following:

1

Judgment was entered against Riley in the amount of $81,960.75 pursuant to a settlement agreement. According to the trial court, “based on the moving and opposition papers” filed below, the parties “engaged in subsequent settlement discussions regarding [Riley] obtaining a secured loan in order to assume the mortgage and pay Plaintiff the money owed under the settlement.” Thereafter, Riley filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement, arguing that plaintiff refused to execute “the necessary ‘paperwork’ ” that would enable Riley to undertake the refinancing. Riley’s motion was supported by an unsigned declaration and opposed by plaintiff’s sworn declaration stating that the paperwork Riley had supplied him was incomplete. At the hearing on Riley’s motion, plaintiff agreed to provide the required signatures but took the position that a third party’s signature also would be needed in order for the refinance to proceed. The trial court concluded, “[n]otwithstanding Plaintiff’s apparent agreement to execute the documents identified by [Riley] . . . in the moving papers, the record before the Court does not provide a legal or factual basis to grant the motion and enter judgment against Plaintiff pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement. Accordingly, the motion is denied.” It is an appellant’s burden to demonstrate error on appeal. “ ‘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 affirmative 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 (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) Among other consequences arising from these principles, we disregard all factual statements in Riley’s appellate brief that are not supported by a citation to the appellate record (Madrigal v. Hyundai Motor