Bohaty v. Bohaty CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D067034 · 2015-09-18 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. 37-2013-00044709-CU-NP-NC
Trial judge: Earl H. Maas, III
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: civil
Panel: Joan K. Irion (author), Judith L. Haller, Judith D. McConnell

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:08Z · confidence high

The trial court entered judgment in favor of Silvie Bohaty, finding her testimony regarding vehicle ownership more credible than Martin Bohaty's and concluding no conversion or other claims were valid. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, holding that Martin failed to provide an adequate appellate record (specifically the trial transcript) and did not identify any legal errors, thereby triggering the presumption of correctness.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Judgment in favor of Silvie Bohaty based on credibility determinations regarding vehicle ownership “Because the court found Silvie was the owner of the vehicles at the time of their alleged sales, it concluded there had been no conversion, abuse of process, breach of duty, unjust enrichment, or basis for any of Martin's claims.”	de novo	not reached	agree with court The appellate court did not review the merits of the trial court's credibility determination because the appellant failed to provide the necessary reporter's transcript of the trial proceedings. Under California Rules of Court, rule 8.120(b), an appellant must provide a record of oral proceedings to raise issues requiring their consideration. Because Martin only provided the transcript from a prior, unrelated TRO hearing, the appellate court could not assess the trial court's findings and was required to presume the trial court acted correctly. The court correctly applied the principle that it is not the appellate court's role to reweigh evidence or evaluate credibility when the record is insufficient to do so.

Authorities

relied: Denham v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557 — A judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct, and error must be affirmatively shown.
relied: Pringle v. La Chapelle (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1000 — The burden of affirmatively demonstrating error is on the appellant, and briefs may not rely upon matters not part of the record on appeal.
relied: Bullock v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 655 — The appellant has the burden to provide an adequate record on appeal to allow the reviewing court to assess purported error; absent an indication of error in the record, the court must presume no error occurred.
relied: Lenk v. Total-Western, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 959 — It is the exclusive province of the trier of fact to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the facts.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the presumption of correctness and the appellant's burden to provide an adequate record. It appropriately declines to review the merits due to the missing trial transcript and correctly notes that credibility determinations are for the trial court.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:30Z · confidence medium

After a bench trial, the San Diego Superior Court entered judgment for Silvie Bohaty on Martin Bohaty's claims for conversion, abuse of process, breach of fiduciary duty, accounting, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief, finding Silvie's testimony more credible on ownership of the vehicles she sold. The Court of Appeal affirmed because Martin identified no legal error, improperly attached new evidence to his brief, and failed to provide a reporter's transcript of the trial, requiring the court to presume the judgment correct.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Judgment for defendant after bench trial based on finding that defendant was the owner of the vehicles, defeating all six causes of action “The court ruled in Silvie's favor, finding her testimony to be "far more credible" than Martin as to ownership of the vehicles.”	substantial evidence	correct	agree with court The appellate court properly applied the presumption of correctness (Denham) and the appellant's burden to furnish an adequate record (Bullock; rule 8.120(b)). Without a trial transcript, credibility-based factual findings cannot be reviewed, and the court correctly declined to reweigh evidence (Lenk). The court also correctly refused to consider post-trial letters attached to the brief (Pringle). The 2012 TRO transcript, which Martin did supply, was reviewed and found not to undermine the title finding. The reasoning follows settled law.

Authorities

relied: Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557 — A judgment is presumed correct; all intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters where the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown.
relied: Pringle v. La Chapelle (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1000 — Appellant bears the burden of affirmatively demonstrating error; briefs must provide argument and authority and may not rely on matters outside the appellate record.
relied: Bullock v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 655 — Appellant must provide an adequate record to assess claimed error; absent a record showing error, the court presumes none occurred.
relied: Lenk v. Total-Western, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 959 — Credibility of witnesses and truth of facts are the exclusive province of the trier of fact; the appellate court does not reweigh evidence.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly disposes of the appeal on well-established record-inadequacy and presumption-of-correctness grounds, citing the appropriate authorities for each step. It also went beyond the minimum by reviewing the one transcript the appellant did supply and explaining why it did not warrant reversal.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 9/18/15 Bohaty v. Bohaty 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

MARTIN BOHATY, D067034

Plaintiff and Appellant, v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2013-00044709- CU-NP-NC) SILVIE BOHATY, Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Earl H.

Maas III, Judge. Affirmed.

Martin Bohaty, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Silvie Bohaty (Pudilova), in pro. per., for Defendant and Respondent. After a bench trial, the court entered judgment in favor of Silvie Bohaty, wife of Martin Bohaty,1 in a dispute over personal property. Martin, in propria persona, appeals the judgment. We affirm.

1 As Silvie Bohaty and Martin Bohaty share the same last name, in the interests of clarity we refer to them by their first names. We intend no disrespect. 2 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In April 2013, Martin filed a complaint against Silvie containing six causes of action: (1) abuse of process, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, (3) accounting, (4) unjust enrichment/disgorgement, (5) conversion, and (6) declaratory relief. In the complaint, Martin alleged he met Silvie in her home country of the Czech Republic in 2009, and arranged for her and her two children to travel to California, where they began living with him. Martin and Silvie were married in 2010. In November 2011, Silvie obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO) that restricted Martin from visiting their residence.

As alleged in the complaint, the TRO was obtained by Silvie as part of a scheme to separate Martin from his personal property, which included several vehicles. At the time, title to these vehicles was held in Silvie's name. She claimed they had been a prewedding gift from Martin; in contrast, Martin asserted he transferred title to her to hide the assets from his ex-wife, who was seeking additional child support payments, and he expected Silvie to eventually sign title back to him. While the TRO was in effect, Silvie allegedly wrongfully sold the vehicles for over $50,000. In February 2012, a court (Commissioner Patti C. Ratekin) dismissed the TRO, finding that Silvie had not met her burden of proving she was in "real fear" of her life.

In September 2014, the court (Judge Maas) held a trial, received written and oral evidence, and considered the parties' arguments. The court ruled in Silvie's favor, finding her testimony to be "far more credible" than Martin as to ownership of the vehicles.

Because the court found Silvie was the owner of the vehicles at the time of their alleged sales, it concluded there had been no conversion, abuse of process, breach of duty, unjust 3 enrichment, or basis for any of Martin's claims. Martin filed a notice of appeal and record designation. The only reporter's transcript he included in the appellate record was the transcript from the 2012 TRO hearing.

DISCUSSION

No Showing of Reversible Error We first observe that Martin has not identified any legal errors in the trial court proceedings. In his opening brief, he starts by expressing his "disappointment" with the court's decision to rule in Silvie's favor, and then recites his wife's alleged "lies" in their marital relationship and various other aspects of life. Martin also attaches new evidence to his appellate brief—letters from two of his ex-wives and a friend's "declaration"— dated after trial, and which were apparently not before the trial court.

Our role, as an appellate court, is limited. " 'A judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct. All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown. This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.' " (Denham v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1970)

2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) The burden of affirmatively demonstrating error is on the appellant.

(Pringle v. La Chapelle (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1000, 1003.) "Briefs must provide argument and legal authority for the positions taken; they may not rely upon matters which are not part of the record on appeal." (Ibid.) Here, Martin's brief is deficient, and he improperly submitted new evidence on appeal.

4 Moreover, Martin's primary grievance appears to be that Judge Maas chose to believe Silvie's testimony rather than his own. However, Martin did not provide us with a reporter's transcript of the September 2014 trial proceedings and other relevant documents considered by the court. California Rules of Court, rule 8.120(b) states: "If an appellant intends to raise any issue that requires consideration of the oral proceedings in the superior court, the record on appeal must include a record of these oral proceedings . . . ." The appellant has the burden to provide an adequate record on appeal to allow the reviewing court to assess the purported error. (Bullock v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 655, 678.) "Absent an indication in the record that an error occurred, we must presume that there was no error." (Ibid.) Without a transcript of any oral proceedings presided over by Judge Maas, we must presume there was no error in the trial court's ruling.

In any event, it is not our role to evaluate the credibility of witnesses or reweigh the evidence. (Lenk v. Total-Western, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 959, 968 [" ' "[I]t is the exclusive province of the [trier of fact] to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the facts upon which a determination depends." ' "].) Martin requests that we review a transcript of Silvie's testimony from a 2012 hearing on the TRO, which we have done.2 Silvie's 2012 testimony, standing alone, does not support reversal of the judgment because it constitutes only one piece of evidence considered by the trial court and does not contradict that Silvie held title to the vehicles she sold.

2 The TRO decision is not being appealed. We reviewed her 2012 testimony to the extent it was relevant to the appealed judgment. 5 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. Each party is to bear its own costs on appeal.

IRION, J.

WE CONCUR:

MCCONNELL, P. J.

HALLER, J.

Cites, in this corpus

Bullock v. Phillip Morris USA, Inc. B164398, B169083 · 2008-01-30
Lenk v. Total-Western, Inc. F032238 · 2001-06-04
Pringle v. La Chapelle B125935 · 1999-07-28
Denham v. Superior Court L.A. 29704 · 1970-05-06