Marriage of Kim CA3, C080719

Michael and Annabelle Kim married in 2000 and separated in 2011; long-cause property hearing occurred September 2015.
Trial court characterized real property in the Philippines as Annabelle’s separate property because title was in her name and husband failed to rebut the title presumption by clear and convincing evidence.
The court found the parties agreed the Fidelity Joint Account to be divided had a balance of approximately $201 and ordered it divided equally.
Husband appealed, arguing (1) the Philippine real property was purchased with community funds and wife perjured herself, and (2) he should receive credit for a larger Fidelity account balance (he claimed $6,635.49 at separation).
The appellate record lacks a reporter’s transcript of the long-cause hearing; the appeal is treated as a judgment-roll appeal, requiring the court to presume the trial court’s findings are supported by evidence and that official acts were regularly performed.

Issue	Husband's Argument	Wife's Argument	Held
Characterization of Philippine real property	Property was bought with community funds; title presumption rebutted; wife perjured herself	Title is in wife’s name; husband failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that it is community property	Affirmed — title presumption applies; on judgment-roll appeal, presume sufficient evidence supported trial court’s finding of wife’s separate property
Amount/credit from Fidelity Joint Account	Account balance at separation was $6,635.49; husband entitled to credit for removed funds	Parties agreed to divide approximately $201; trial court’s finding controls	Affirmed — absent transcript, appellate court must presume evidence supports trial court’s finding of ~ $201 balance

Allen v. Toten, 172 Cal.App.3d 1079 (1985) (discusses judgment-roll appeals and presumptions when transcript is absent)
Krueger v. Bank of America, 145 Cal.App.3d 204 (1983) (procedural principles for appeals on the judgment roll)
Ehrler v. Ehrler, 126 Cal.App.3d 147 (1981) (when record is limited to the judgment roll, courts must presume evidence supported the trial court’s findings)
Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal.4th 1122 (2001) (appellant bears burden to provide adequate record to show error)
In re Marriage of Hall, 81 Cal.App.4th 313 (2000) (review on judgment roll limited to errors appearing on the face of the record)
People v. Giordano, 42 Cal.4th 644 (2007) (presumption that trial court judgment is correct)
Brewer v. Simpson, 53 Cal.2d 567 (1960) (adopted the practice of drawing inferences in favor of the judgment)
Wantuch v. Davis, 32 Cal.App.4th 786 (1995) (restrictive appellate rules apply to pro se appellants)
Leslie v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance, 234 Cal.App.3d 117 (1991) (same principle regarding pro se appellants)
Nelson v. Gaunt, 125 Cal.App.3d 623 (1981) (procedural rules and burdens on appellants)
People v. Duran, 97 Cal.App.4th 1448 (2002) (presumption that official duties were regularly performed)
Olivia v. Suglio, 139 Cal.App.2d 7 (1956) (invalidity not appearing on the face of the record is presumed not to exist)

Disposition: the trial court’s order is affirmed; husband ordered to pay wife’s costs on appeal.