Full Opinion

Filed 11/2/26 Marriage of G.S. and M.S. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Placer) In re the Marriage of G.S. and M.S. C105332 G.S., (Super. Ct. No. S-DR- Appellant, 0063742) v. M.S., Respondent. G.S. (husband) appeals from several orders issued by the family court in a dissolution proceeding, including orders (1) denying his request to change venue and a subsequent order denying his motion to reconsider; (2) denying his request to change or end a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO); (3) denying his request for credits or reimbursement for overpayment of child support; and (4) compelling him to pay $2,500 in sanctions to M.S. (wife). On the limited record we have before us — which does not include a reporter’s transcript — we find no error and affirm the court’s orders. BACKGROUND Husband has elected to proceed without a reporter’s transcript. The limited record we have on appeal indicates that in July 2025, husband filed a request for an order to change venue. He argued the parties no longer had ties to Placer County, where the 1 dissolution proceedings were initiated. The family court heard husband’s request on September 9, 2025. The court summarily denied his request, issuing a written order on September 19, 2025. On September 18, 2025, husband filed a request to end the DVRO. The DVRO was set to expire in September 2028. In a separate motion filed that same day, husband asked the family court to reconsider its prior order denying his request to change venue. Husband also asked the court for an order giving him credits or reimbursement for overpayment of child support. The family court heard husband’s motions on October 20, 2025. The court issued a written decision on October 27, 2025, summarily denying each of his motions. The court also ordered husband to pay $2,500 in sanctions to wife. DISCUSSION I. Notice of Appeal Husband filed his notice of appeal in the family court on December 15, 2025. In his notice of appeal, husband says he is appealing from a November 2024 order, as well as the October 2025 order. First, the record does not include a November 2024 order. Nor would an appeal from such an order be timely. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(a).) In addition, husband’s brief raises claims related to the court’s September 19, 2025, order denying his request to change venue. “ ‘[N]otices of appeal are to be liberally construed so as to protect the right of appeal if it is reasonably clear what appellant was trying to appeal from, and where the respondent could not possibly have been misled or prejudiced.’ ” (Verceles v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 776, 783; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.100(a)(2).) Despite not identifying the September 19, 2025, order on the notice of appeal, wife responded to husband’s claims. It is, therefore, evident she was neither misled nor prejudiced by the omission in 2 husband’s notice of appeal. Therefore, we construe the notice of appeal to include the September 19, 2025, order. II. Claims of Error A. Legal Principles “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; see also Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608-609.) As the appellant, husband bears the “burden to affirmatively demonstrate error by citing applicable law and showing where in the record the error occurred.” (Br. C. v. Be. C. (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 259, 264.) Husband’s decision to proceed in this appeal with neither a reporter’s transcript nor a settled or agreed statement — in what is known as an appeal “on the judgment roll” (Allen v. Toten (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1079, 1082) — limits husband’s ability to carry this burden. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.120(b) [to raise an issue that requires consideration of oral proceedings in trial court, record on appeal must include a reporter’s transcript, an agreed statement, or a settled statement]; Jameson, at p. 608 [“the absence of a court reporter at trial court proceedings and the resulting lack of a verbatim record of such proceedings will frequently be fatal to a litigant’s ability to have his or her claims of trial court error resolved on the merits by an appellate court”].) “Because the case is presented in this posture, we presume that the trial court’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, and its conclusions of law are binding upon us unless error appears on the face of the record.” (Nielsen v. Gibson (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 318, 321; see id. at p. 324 [“we ‘ “must conclusively presume that the evidence is ample to sustain the [trial court’s] findings” ’ ”]; Elena S. v. Kroutik (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 570, 574-575.) Whether proceeding with or without a record of the oral proceedings, an appellant must provide cogent legal argument in support of all claims of error with citation to legal authority as well as supporting references to the record, if possible. (Cal. Rules of Court, 3 rule 8.204(a)(1)(B), (C); County of Sacramento v. Singh (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 858, 861 (Singh).) The same standards apply to self-represented litigants. (Singh, at p. 861.) “ ‘When an appellant fails to raise a point, or asserts it but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citations to authority,’ ” we treat the point as forfeited. (Br. C. v. Be. C., supra, 101 Cal.App.5th at p. 264; Singh, at p. 861.) “It is not our place to construct theories or arguments to undermine the judgment [or order on appeal] and defeat the presumption of correctness.” (Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 852.) B. Analysis Husband contends the trial court erred in denying his motion for a change of venue. Court orders denying a motion to change venue are reviewed by petition for writ of mandate within 20 days after service of a written order (Code Civ. Proc., § 400), relief that husband did not seek. (See K.R.L. Partnership v. Superior Court (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 490, 496, fn. 6 [“An order granting or denying a motion to transfer venue is reviewable only by petition for writ of mandate.”].) And, although we have the discretion to treat an improper appeal as a petition for a writ of mandate in “ ‘unusual circumstances’ ” (Calhoun v. Vallejo City Unified School Dist. (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 39, 42, overruled on another ground in K.J. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2020) 8 Cal.5th 875, 888, fn. 6), no unusual circumstances are present here. Moreover, any attempt to analyze the merits of arguments raised by husband would be futile because husband has not provided an adequate record for us to do so. We reject this claim accordingly.1 1 To the extent husband also is challenging the October 27, 2025, order, which denied his motion for reconsideration of the September 19, 2025, order denying his request to change venue, that challenge similarly fails. 4 Husband also contends the trial court erred in denying his request for credits or to be reimbursed for overpaying child support. Because his contention is unaccompanied by legal argument, citation to relevant legal authority, or relevant references to the record, we are not able to consider it. (Br. C. v. Be. C., supra, 101 Cal.App.5th at p. 264; Singh, supra, 65 Cal.App.5th at pp. 861, 870; Benach v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 149 Cal.App.4th at p. 852.) Next, husband argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to change or dismiss the DVRO because, he claims, “the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated changed circumstances.” (Boldface omitted.) For judgment roll appeals, however, we must presume the trial court heard substantial evidence to support its findings. (Nielsen v. Gibson, supra, 178 Cal.App.4th at p. 324; see Oliveira v. Kiesler (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1349, 1362 [the “ ‘absence of a record concerning what actually occurred at the trial precludes a determination that the trial court [erred]’ ”]; Hodges v. Mark (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 651, 657 [“appellant’s omission of the reporter’s transcript precludes appellant from raising any evidentiary issues on appeal”].) Regarding the sanctions, husband asserts the trial court erred in ordering him to pay $2,500 in sanctions because he tried to resolve the issues cooperatively and wife filed “several meritless vexatious litigant request[s].” He also argues the court made no findings regarding his ability to pay the sanctions and says the sanctions “were punitive, not compensatory.” Like husband’s previous arguments, these assertions are unsupported by legal argument, citation to relevant legal authority, or relevant references to the record. They are therefore forfeited. (Br. C. v. Be. C., supra, 101 Cal.App.5th at p. 264; Singh, supra, 65 Cal.App.5th at pp. 861, 870; Benach v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 149 Cal.App.4th at p. 852.) Further, because this is a judgment roll appeal, we assume the facts necessary to support the trial court’s order. (Elena S. v. Kroutik, supra, 247 Cal.App.4th at pp. 574-575.) 5 DISPOSITION The court’s orders are affirmed. Wife is awarded her costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1), (2).) /s/ DAMRELL, J. We concur: /s/ ROBIE, Acting P. J. /s/ RENNER, J. 6