Full Opinion

Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two October 27, 2026 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II SHIMBEY AYA SEPHORA C. ASSIE, No. 60831-6-II Respondent, v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION KEVIN JUNIOR SEPENU, Appellant. PRICE, A.C.J. — Kevin Sepenu appeals the final decree in his legal separation from Shimbey Assie, arguing that the superior court erred by ordering him to pay Assie almost $20,000. Because Sepenu failed to designate an adequate record for review, we are unable to address his arguments. We affirm. FACTS On April 21, 2025, the superior court held a hearing on the separation and entered a final decree granting Assie and Sepenu a legal separation. In the decree, the superior court ordered Assie to pay Sepenu $19,800. Sepenu appealed. To perfect his appeal, Sepenu did not, apparently, designate all of the documents that were before the superior court at the time of the hearing. Sepenu, instead, designated only a single declaration he had filed several weeks prior to the superior court’s hearing on the final order and some financial source documents filed at the same time—neither of which appear to have been identified or admitted as exhibits. It also appears that Sepenu originally attempted to arrange for 60831-6-II the transcription of the hearing on April 21, 2025, but he ultimately did not arrange for any report of proceedings to be filed.1 ANALYSIS Sepenu assigns five errors to the superior court’s decision: 1. The trial court erred by ordering Appellant to transfer one hundred percent of the funds in the parties’ joint bank account to Respondent. (DCLGSP 1). 2. The trial court abused its discretion by disregarding the presumption that community property acquired during marriage is owned equally by both spouses. 3. The trial court erred by failing to consider documentary evidence demonstrating Respondent’s knowledge and approval of the transfer of funds. (CP 17). 4. The trial court erred by failing to properly consider evidence of Appellant’s income and household financial responsibilities. (CP 18-33). 5. The trial court violated Appellant’s due process rights by relying on assertions contradicted by the record and failing to meaningfully consider Appellant’s evidence. (CP 17-33). Br. of Appellant at 4. “The appellant has the burden of perfecting the record so that the court has before it all the evidence relevant to the issue.” In re Marriage of Haugh, 58 Wn. App. 1, 6, 790 P.2d 1266 (1990); RAP 9.2(b). Sepenu has failed to satisfy this burden. All of the issues Sepenu raises challenge the superior court’s decision to award Assie $19,800 in the separation decree. Although Sepenu has presented the evidence he believes supports his position, without the transcript of the hearing or all of the evidence presented, we have 1 On August 21, 2025, Sepenu filed a statement of arrangements to have a hearing on April 21, 2025, transcribed. This statement of arrangements was rejected because it failed to identify a court reporter or to be served on a court reporter. Later, Sepenu filed a statement of arrangements stating that no transcripts would be provided. 2 60831-6-II no ability to accurately evaluate the superior court’s decision. See Olmsted v. Mulder, 72 Wn. App. 169, 183, 863 P.2d 1355 (1993) (“We cannot reach the merits of [appellant’s] arguments because he has failed to provide us with a sufficient trial record.”), review denied, 123 Wn.2d 1025 (1994). Accordingly, we affirm. A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered. PRICE, A.C.J. We concur: VELJACIC, C.J. CRUSER, J. 3