Williams v. Love CA1/5

Filed 6/28/24 Williams v. Love CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for pur- poses of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

SHAWNY K. WILLIAMS, as Trustee, etc., A168790 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (City and County of San Francisco SHANDA LOVE et al., Super. Ct. No. CUD-23-671215) Defendants and Appellants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

In this unlawful detainer action, the trial court granted a motion for summary judgment—filed by Shawny K. Williams, as Trustee of the Williams Calderon Trust—and agreed that Shanda Love, Shannon Williams, and Mashama Nolan (collectively, appellants) could not show the existence of a triable issue of material fact after admitting (in discovery responses) the allegations of the Trustee’s complaint. Accordingly, the trial court entered judgment—for possession of the premises, past due rent, and damages—in the Trustee’s favor. Appellants, who have been proceeding in propria persona at all relevant times, appeal

We resolve this appeal by a memorandum opinion 1

pursuant to California Standards of Judicial Administration, standard 8.1, and the First Appellate District Local Rules, rule 19. 1

from that judgment,2 contending that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because there is a triable issue of material fact as to whether they agreed to pay the Trustee rent. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1161, subd. (2).) We affirm because appellants wholly fail to meet their burden to demonstrate error.

It is well established that appellate courts must presume a trial court’s judgment is correct and that errors must be affirmatively demonstrated on appeal. (Howard v. Thrifty Drug & Discount Stores (1995) 10 Cal.4th 424, 443; Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) To do so, the appellant has the burden of providing a record adequate for the task of determining whether error occurred. (Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295; Hotels Nevada, LLC v. L.A. Pacific Center, Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 336, 348.) Accordingly, because we must make all presumptions in favor of the validity of the judgment, failure to provide an adequate record means that the issue must be resolved against the appellant. (Maria P., at pp. 1295-1296; Gee v. American Realty & Construction, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1416.)