Marriage of Zayas-Alvarez and Alvarez-Cabanillas CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D086065 · 2025-12-23 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. 22FL002438S
Trial judge: Sherry Thompson-Taylor
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: family
Panel: Joan K. Irion (author), Truc T. Do, Buchanan

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T02:43Z · confidence high

The trial court denied the appellant's request to terminate a restraining order issued during the marriage dissolution. The Court of Appeal affirmed the order, finding that the appellant failed to provide an adequate appellate record to demonstrate error.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Order denying request to terminate restraining order “By providing an inadequate record for us to evaluate the contentions raised in his appeal, Alvarez-Cabanillas has defaulted on his contention that the trial court erred in denying his request to terminate the restraining order.”	de novo	error	agree with court The appellate court correctly applied the fundamental principle that an appellant bears the burden of demonstrating error based on the record presented. Because the appellant failed to include the underlying restraining order, the request for termination, or a settled statement of the hearing, the record was inadequate for meaningful review, resulting in a default and affirmance of the trial court's order.

Authorities

relied: Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594 — A trial court judgment is presumed correct, and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error on the basis of the record presented; if the record is inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the decision should be affirmed.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly identifies that the appellant failed to provide the necessary components of the record (the original order, the motion, and a transcript/settled statement) required to review the trial court's decision. It properly applies the default rule from Jameson v. Desta to affirm the lower court's order due to the appellant's failure to meet the burden of proof on appeal.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:29Z · confidence medium

The San Diego Superior Court denied the self-represented husband's request to terminate a domestic violence restraining order that had been issued in September 2023 and was set to run until 2027. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that because the appellant failed to provide the original restraining order, his termination request, any supporting evidence, or a settled statement of the unreported hearing, the record was inadequate for review and the order is presumed correct.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of request to terminate the domestic violence restraining order “By providing an inadequate record for us to evaluate the contentions raised in his appeal, Alvarez-Cabanillas has defaulted on his contention that the trial court erred in denying his request to terminate the restraining order.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court did not reach the merits or articulate a substantive standard of review; it applied the settled presumption of correctness and the rule that an appellant who furnishes an inadequate record defaults. Jameson v. Desta squarely supports that result where the challenged order, the moving papers, the evidence, and any settled statement of an unreported hearing are all absent. The appellant's bias and evidentiary contentions could not be evaluated without those materials, so affirmance on inadequate-record grounds was proper.

Authorities

relied: Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594 — A trial court judgment is presumed correct; the appellant bears the burden of demonstrating error on the record presented, and if the record is inadequate for meaningful review the appellant defaults and the decision should be affirmed.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly applies the presumption of correctness and the inadequate-record default rule from Jameson v. Desta to an appeal lacking the restraining order, the termination request, supporting evidence, and any settled statement of the unreported hearing. It does not discuss the substantive standard for terminating a DVRO or the appellant's specific contentions, but given the record deficiencies that omission is justified rather than a gap.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 12/23/25 Marriage of Zayas-Alvarez and Alvarez-Cabanillas CA4/1 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.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re the Marriage of DULCE MARIA ZAYAS-ALVAREZ AND MIGUEL ALVAREZ-CABANILLAS. D086065 DULCE MARIA ZAYAS-ALVAREZ, Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 22FL002438S)

MIGUEL ALVAREZ-CABANILLAS,

Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Sherry Thompson-Taylor, Judge. Affirmed. Miguel Agustin Alvarez-Cabanillas, in pro. per., for Appellant. No appearance for Respondent.

In this marriage dissolution proceeding, Miguel Agustin Alvarez- Cabanillas, a self-represented litigant, appeals from an order denying his request to terminate a restraining order. As we will explain, Alvarez-Cabanillas has not provided an adequate appellate record for us to review the trial court’s order and evaluate his appellate arguments. Accordingly, we affirm the order. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This marriage dissolution proceeding was instituted on March 4, 2022, when Dulce Maria Zayas-Alvarez filed a petition for dissolution against Alvarez-Cabanillas. As reflected in the Register of Actions, the trial court issued a restraining order against Alvarez-Cabanillas on September 5, 2023. That restraining order is not included in the appellate record. From other statements in the appellate record, it appears the restraining order was set to remain in force until September 5, 2027. On March 3, 2025, the trial court denied Alvarez-Cabanillas’s request to terminate the restraining order. Alvarez-Cabanillas’s request for an order terminating the restraining order is not included in the appellate record. The trial court issued its order denying Alvarez-Cabanillas’s request following a hearing held on March 3, 2025. The minute order from the March 3, 2025 hearing states that the court has denied the request to terminate the restraining order. It also notes “that on 09/05/2023, the Court found [Zayas- Alvarez] had met the burden of proof by a preponderance of evidence, demonstrating recent acts of domestic violence.” The March 3, 2025 hearing was not reported, and Alvarez-Cabanillas has not obtained a settled statement regarding that hearing. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.137.) Alvarez-Cabanillas filed a notice of appeal on March 28, 2025, from the order denying the request to terminate the restraining order. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 904.1, subd. (a)(6) [allowing an appeal from “an order . . . refusing 2 to . . . dissolve an injunction”].) Zayas-Alvarez has not filed a respondent’s brief. II. DISCUSSION In his appellate brief, Alvarez-Cabanillas argues that the trial court erred in denying his request to terminate the restraining order. According to Alvarez-Cabanillas, the trial court ruled against him based on “extreme bias.” Alvarez-Cabanillas further contends, among other things, that the trial court erred by not considering a police report, by relying on “false declarations,” and by failing to consider the harm that Alvarez-Cabanillas was experiencing due to the restraining order. As we have explained, the appellate record does not contain the original restraining order issued September 5, 2023, or Alvarez-Cabanillas’s request to terminate that restraining order. If Alvarez-Cabanillas submitted any evidence in support of his request, that evidence is also not included in the appellate record. Further, the appellate record does not contain a settled statement about what occurred at the hearing on March 3, 2025. Without those items, we are unable to evaluate whether the trial court erred in denying the request to terminate the restraining order. “[I]t is a fundamental principle of appellate procedure that a trial court judgment is ordinarily presumed to be correct and the burden is on an appellant to demonstrate, on the basis of the record presented to the appellate court, that the trial court committed an error that justifies reversal of the judgment.” (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608–609.) “ ‘This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’ ” (Id. at p. 609.) “ ‘ “A necessary corollary to this rule is that if the record is inadequate for meaningful review, 3 the appellant defaults and the decision of the trial court should be affirmed.” ’ ” (Ibid.) By providing an inadequate record for us to evaluate the contentions raised in his appeal, Alvarez-Cabanillas has defaulted on his contention that the trial court erred in denying his request to terminate the restraining order. We therefore affirm the trial court’s order. DISPOSITION The March 3, 2025 order denying Alvarez-Cabanillas’s request to terminate the restraining order is affirmed.

IRION, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

DO, J.

BUCHANAN, J.

Cites, in this corpus

Jameson v. Desta S230899 · 2018-07-05