Marriage of Hed CA4/3

Filed 8/11/23 Marriage of Hed CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re Marriage of JAMES M. and JUANA AVILA HED.

JAMES M. HED, G061653 Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 17D004364) v. OPINION JUANA AVILA HED,

Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Sandy N. Leal, Judge. Affirmed. Motion to augment record granted. Juana Avila Hed, in pro. per., for Appellant. No appearance for Respondent.

Juana Avila Hed appeals from a judgment entered in her marital dissolution 1 case dividing community property between her and James M. Hed. Juana contends the judgment should be reversed due to various factual issues, including the bases for how community property assets were divided. Given the insufficiency of the appellate record, we affirm the judgment. FACTS I. The Judgment Juana challenges the trial court’s judgment entered on June 3, 2022, in the underlying marital dissolution matter. From what can be discerned in the appellate record presented, the judgment was rendered after both parties presented testimony and other evidence to the court over the course of multiple days, to resolve their disputes on a myriad of issues regarding their respective rights and obligations affected by the finalization of their divorce. The judgment stated the couple had been married for three years eight months and had no children together. It resolved issues involving spousal support, property division, and attorney fees. On the first issue, the trial court decreed no support was owed by either party. On the second issue, the judgment decreed which party owned what property, covering various items such as real property, vehicles, and financial accounts. Juana was ordered to make an equalization payment and reimbursement payments to James totaling $156,371 as well as to pay to James $1,311 for attorney fees “incurred as a result of the delays of trial caused by J[uana].” II. Appellate Briefing Juana contends the judgment should be reversed because the trial court arrived at incorrect factual determinations on various matters. For example, without citation to the appellate record, her appellate briefing quotes a court ruling that contained 1 Because they share a surname, we refer to the parties by their first names for clarity; no disrespect is intended.