|
|
Defendant Sawyer boarded horses
with plaintiff Mageno. When she
could not pay the board, Mageno seized her horses under the California
agister’s lien law and sold them to recover the money she owned him. After that event, she threatened him orally and in writing on
numerous occasions. Plaintiff filed
a lawsuit for an injunction from the court requiring defendant Sawyer to stop
the harassment, which the trial court granted.
In this opinion, the Court of Appeals upholds that order because there
was no information presented to it that the trial court hearing was unfair to
defendant.
Sue Sawyer appeals an order issuing an injunction prohibiting
her from harassing Ruben Mageno. She contends the court committed prejudicial
error when it did not allow her to question witnesses at the hearing. We affirm
the order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Sawyer boarded several horses at Mageno's ranch. At some point
not clear in the record, Mageno applied for an order authorizing the sale of the
horses pursuant to the Livestock Lien Statutes (Civ.Code, §§
3080‑3080.22). In August 2001, the court granted that order. In a letter
to Mageno dated October 18, 2001, Sawyer disputed Mageno's right to sell the
horses, stating that the matter had not been litigated and that there was no
judgment or recorded lien.
In October 2001, Mageno sought a restraining order against
Sawyer. In his declaration supporting that application he asserted Sawyer began
threatening him after he sold the horses pursuant to the order. He claimed
Sawyer telephoned him early one morning to tell him the last person with whom
she had been involved in legal proceedings ended up in the hospital, badly
beaten and with broken arms and left a threatening letter on his property
several days later. He also asserted either Sawyer or her friend telephoned him
daily threatening to sue him or making unfounded allegations. In November 2001,
the court issued an order enjoining her from harassing him.
DISCUSSION
Sawyer contends the court erred when it issued its restraining
order because she was denied the opportunity to present evidence or question
witnesses at that hearing. A fundamental principle of appellate law is that an
appellant must affirmatively show error by an adequate record. (Bianco v.
California Highway Patrol (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1125.) This is because the
judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct. (Ibid.) We are limited
to reviewing the matters appearing in the record. (In re Mark C. (1992) 7
Cal.App.4th 433, 445.) Accordingly, the appellant must include in the appellate
record the portions of the reporter's transcript relevant to the issues on
appeal. (Bianco v. California Highway Patrol, supra, 24 Cal.App.4th at p. 1125.)
Here, however, Sawyer has not provided us with a record that
demonstrates she was denied the opportunity to produce or question witnesses.
Because she elected not to provide a reporter's transcript, we cannot determine
whether the court deprived her of an opportunity to question witnesses. She also
did not designate any minute orders from which we might be able to determine
what occurred. When matters are not presented in the record, we may not consider
them "on the suggestion of ... the briefs." (In re Hochberg (1970) 2
Cal.3d 870, 875.) In the absence of any information to the contrary, we assume
the court properly performed its judicial function (Evid.Code, § 664), which
would include allowing Sawyer to question witnesses if the testimony she sought
was relevant. Because the record is incomplete and such incompleteness precludes
an adequate review of the alleged error, we affirm the order. (Estrada v.
Ramirez (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 618, 620, fn 1.)
[FN1]
FN1. In
any event, it appears the information Sawyer sought to elicit was not relevant
to the issues before the court. In determining whether to issue the injunction,
the court had to determine whether Sawyer was unlawfully violent, made a
credible threat of violence, or engaged in a knowing and willful course of
conduct directed at Mageno that seriously alarmed, annoyed, or harassed him and
served no legitimate purpose. (Code Civ. Proc., § 527.6, subd. (b).) The court
also must find the course of conduct must be such that it would cause a
reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress and must actually
cause substantial emotional distress to the plaintiff. (Ibid.)
Here,
however, Sawyer wanted to introduce evidence that Mageno lied to the court about
the order he had obtained allowing him to sell her horses and to question her
attorney about the arrangements to ship the horses. From the record before us,
these lines of questioning do not appear to be relevant to the injunction.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
Return to Top of This Page
Return to Sales and Contract Disputes Page