Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Yaling Zhou, as trustee of the Yaling Family Trust dated June 15, 2023, filed an unlawful detainer complaint against Jacky Lee and later amended it twice. Lee answered and asserted various defenses, including that Zhou served him with a notice to quit as a form of retaliation. In his answer, Lee alleged that in late May 2024 he entered a one-year lease for a single-family house, moved in with his family in June 2024, and withheld rent because of undisclosed problems: a nonworking water heater, a nonworking oven, nonworking smoke detectors, a defective bathroom, and a broken doorknob. He claimed maintenance requests were slow or cancelled, and that Zhou and a handyman entered the house with a backup key, which police concluded was not a break-in.
A bench trial was held on the unlawful detainer action. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Zhou and ordered Lee to pay $86,050 in past-due rent, holdover damages, attorney fees, and costs. Lee, representing himself, timely appealed. Zhou filed no appearance or brief in the Court of Appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, affirmed. The court explained that a trial court judgment is presumed correct and the appellant bears the burden of demonstrating reversible error on the record presented, which requires an adequate record and adequate argument with citations to authority and the record. These requirements apply equally to self-represented litigants and attorneys.
The court found Lee's appellate record deficient. He omitted the complaint, the amended complaints, and the reporter's transcript. Because his answer repeatedly referred to the complaint, the court could not fairly evaluate his defenses without the pleadings. And because Lee claimed the trial court repeatedly prohibited him from presenting a retaliation defense, the absence of a reporter's transcript made it impossible to determine what was said at trial or whether the court actually barred the defense. The court also declined to address the issues because of deficiencies in Lee's opening brief: it asserted error without intelligible legal argument explaining why a retaliation defense was relevant or why the trial court abused its discretion; it contained no record citations as required by rule 8.204(a)(1)(C); and it failed to fairly summarize all significant facts as required by rule 8.204(a)(2)(C). The court noted that Code of Civil Procedure section 1172.5, one of the statutes Lee cited, does not exist, although Civil Code section 1942.5 does provide a retaliatory eviction defense.
The court concluded Lee forfeited his appellate claims and affirmed the judgment. No costs were awarded because the respondent did not file a brief on appeal.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant challenging a trial court's evidentiary rulings must provide a reporter's transcript of the relevant proceedings; without it, the appellate court cannot evaluate what occurred and must presume the judgment correct.
- Omitting the operative pleadings from the appellate record can be fatal when the appellant's own filing repeatedly references those documents, because the court cannot fairly assess the issues.
- Self-represented litigants are held to the same appellate procedural standards as attorneys, including the requirements for record citations and a fair, complete statement of significant facts.
- Merely asserting that a defense exists under a statute, without explaining its relevance to the case or why the trial court abused its discretion, does not preserve the issue for appellate review.
- Citing a nonexistent statute undermines an appellant's argument, even when a related valid statute does recognize the asserted defense.
Why It Matters
This unpublished decision reinforces the strict application of appellate forfeiture rules to self-represented litigants in California unlawful detainer appeals. It illustrates how procedural defaults—incomplete records, missing reporter's transcripts, and deficient briefing—can dispose of an appeal without any review of the substantive merits, even when the underlying defense (retaliatory eviction under Civil Code section 1942.5) is recognized by statute.
The case serves as a practical reminder that tenants and landlords alike must preserve issues at trial and comply with California Rules of Court governing appellate records and briefs, because appellate courts will not construct arguments or search the record on a party's behalf.