CourtListener opinion 11276733

Evidence quotes

Clean opinion text

Filed 3/17/26 Marriage of Haynes 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 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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 purposes of rule 8.1115.

 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

 DIVISION FIVE

 In re the Marriage of DAVID and
 TELETHA HAYNES.

 DAVID HAYNES,
 Respondent, A173440
 v.
 TELETHA HAYNES, (Solano County
 Appellant. Super. Ct. No. FFL154019)

 MEMORANDUM OPINION1
 Teletha Haynes appeals a qualified domestic relations order arising
from a postjudgment hearing on the division of her federal Thrift Savings
Plan retirement benefits. We affirm the order for failures to provide an
adequate record for review and supported legal argument.
 BACKGROUND
 In May 2023 the Solano Superior Court entered a judgment dissolving
David and Teletha Haynes's nearly 28-year marriage.2 (In re Marriage of

 1 Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1; Ct. App., First Dist., Local Rules of Ct.,

rule 19.
 2 We use first names for ease of reference. (See In re Marriage of Smith
(1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 469, 475–476, fn. 1.)

 1
 Haynes (Mar. 17, 2026, A172255) [nonpub. opn.].)3 Besides dissolving the
marriage, the judgment apparently orders that part of Teletha's benefits in
the Federal Employees Retirement System is subject to equal division of the
community estate by the standard mechanism: a qualified domestic relations
order. (In re Marriage of Haynes, supra, A172255.)
 In March 2025 the court held one of several hearings on David's
request for order to enforce the judgment's division of retirement benefits.
David had counsel; Teletha did not. After the hearing, the court filed David's
proposed qualified domestic relations order as to Teletha's federal Thrift
Savings Plan benefits (TSP QDRO), which Teletha appeals, still representing
herself, arguing the order's division differs from the judgment's. Though the
appellate record includes the TSP QDRO, it does not include the judgment or
a record of the March 2025 oral proceedings, which were not reported.
 DISCUSSION
 A reviewing court generally presumes an appealed order is correct, and
it is the appellant's burden to demonstrate that the trial court committed
reversible error based on an adequate record. (In re Marriage of Arceneaux
(1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133; Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608–609
["the record presented to the appellate court"].) To meet this burden, the
Appellate Rules (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1 et seq.) obligate the appellant to
support each contention in the opening brief by argument under a separate
heading with citations to legal authority and facts in the appellate record.
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B), (C).) If the record is inadequate for
meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the order is affirmed.

 3 We cite our prior opinion for background. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
8.1115(a), (b); The Utility Reform Network v. Public Utilities Com. (2014) 223
Cal.App.4th 945, 951, fn. 3.)

 2
 (Jameson v. Desta, at p. 609.) In addition, the absence of cogent argument or
citations to authority or the record allows a reviewing court to treat
unsupported contentions as waived. (In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008)
164 Cal.App.4th 814, 830; City of Santa Maria v. Adam (2012) 211
Cal.App.4th 266, 286–287.) These rules apply equally to self-represented
parties. (Tanguilig v. Valdez (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 514, 520.)
 "[The appellant's] burden remains the same whether or not the
respondent files a brief or provides argument or authority on an issue."
(Doe v. McLaughlin (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 640, 655; In re Marriage of
Rifkin & Carty (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1342, fn. 1 [the failure to file a
respondent's brief is not an admission of error].) David did not file a
respondent's brief, and Teletha requested argument only if a tentative
opinion issues. We therefore decide the appeal on the record and the opening
brief. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.220(a)(2).)
 In the opening brief, Teletha's statement of the case summarizes,
"The [TSP QDRO] contradicts the Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage
and includes benefit options that were never discussed, negotiated, or agreed
upon by the parties." Much of the statement of facts that follows lacks record
citations or refers to material that is not part of the appellate record.
Teletha's abbreviated argument is in substance: "[The judgment says] only
retirement contributions, earnings, or accumulations from the date of
marriage through the date of separation are community property and subject
to division," but the TSP QDRO allocates to David more than his half of the
community property part of her Thrift Savings Plan benefits. (Underscoring
omitted.)
 Critically, the judgment is not part of the appellate record, precluding
review of whether the TSP QDRO is contradictory. (See Cosenza v. Kramer

 3
 (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 1100, 1102 [characterizing as "not cognizable" an
argument based partly on failure to plead when the appellate record did not
include the related pleading].) Furthermore, the hearing was not reported, so
to the extent Teletha's argument concerns what happened at the hearing,
without a record of the oral proceedings we presume what happened at the
hearing supports the appealed order. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.120(b); In re
Marriage of Obrecht (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1, 8–9.) The appellate record is
thus inadequate to review Teletha's challenge to the TSP QDRO. Even if the
appellate record did include the judgment or a record of the oral proceedings,
we would still treat the contentions in Teletha's opening brief as waived
because her brief "[is] in dramatic noncompliance with [the Appellate Rules]."
(Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246–1247.)
 DISPOSITION
 The TSP QDRO is affirmed. David is entitled to costs on appeal.
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1), (2).)

 Jackson, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

Burns, J.
Chou, J.

A173440/Haynes v. Haynes

 4