Marriage of Mustafa

• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals
• Decided: November 27, 2024
• Docket: 24CA0917
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

24CA0917 Marriage of Mustafa 11-27-2024

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

Court of Appeals No. 24CA0917 Jefferson County District Court No. 23DR894 Honorable Diego G. Hunt, Judge

In re the Marriage of

Kamal Y. Mustafa,

Appellant,

and

Sumaya S. Badr,

Appellee.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED

Division A Opinion by JUDGE HAWTHORNE* Tow, J., and Berger*, J., concur

NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced November 27, 2024

Kamal Y. Mustafa, Pro Se

No appearance for Appellee

*Sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice under provisions of Colo. Const. art. VI, § 5(3), and § 24-51-1105, C.R.S. 2024. ¶1 In this dissolution of marriage case between Kamal Y. Mustafa

(husband) and Sumaya S. Badr (wife), husband appeals the marital

property division and maintenance portions of the permanent

orders. We affirm.

I. Background

¶2 In May 2024, the district court dissolved the parties’ marriage

of approximately thirty-five years. In the permanent orders, the

court divided the parties’ property and awarded wife $750 per

month in maintenance for an indefinite term. The maintenance

award was based on the court’s finding that husband earned a

combined $4,140 per month in wage and rental income, and wife’s

only income was $600 per month in social security benefits.

II. Discussion

¶3 As best as we can discern, husband claims that the district

court erred by dividing the marital estate and erred by determining

maintenance because wife had recently received a $100,000

inheritance and was receiving additional monthly income from

family members and a catering business that she operated.

¶4 Our review of husband’s claims is hampered by the lack of a

complete record. Specifically, we lack a transcript of the permanent

1 orders hearing. As the appellant, it is husband’s responsibility to

designate the record and to ensure that all items designated are

transmitted to the appellate court. In re Marriage of Tagen, 62 P.3d

1092, 1096 (Colo. App. 2002). An appellant “must include in the

record transcripts of all proceedings necessary for considering and

deciding the issues on appeal.” C.A.R. 10(d)(3).

¶5 “Arguments not presented at trial cannot be raised for the first

time on appeal,” In re Marriage of Ensminger, 209 P.3d 1163, 1167

(Colo. App. 2008), and without a transcript of the permanent orders

hearing, we are unable to determine what testimony and evidence

were presented to the district court supporting the marital property

division and wife’s request for maintenance. So we are unable to

review husband’s claims of error, and we must presume that the

missing record supports the district court’s judgment. See In re

Marriage of Dean, 2017 COA 51, ¶ 15 (where appellant does not

provide a sufficient record showing that the district court erred, an

appellate court has no choice but to affirm the judgment); People v.

Wells, 776 P.2d 386, 390 (Colo. 1989) (reviewing court cannot

conclude that district court’s judgment is erroneous when the

record is insufficient).

2 ¶6 Husband has attached additional documents to his opening

brief to support his claims, but we cannot consider documents

attached to briefs. See In re Marriage of Drexler, 2013 COA 43, ¶

24; In re Marriage of McSoud, 131 P.3d 1208, 1223 (Colo. App.

2006) (“Only facts appearing in the record can be reviewed.”).

¶7 Finally, husband claims that he was not notified of a

mediation that was scheduled before the permanent orders hearing.

Mediation is a nonbinding dispute resolution method designed to

assist the parties in reaching a voluntary settlement, see § 13-22-

302(2.4), C.R.S. 2024. But husband does not explain how he was

prejudiced by the mediation not occurring, see People in Interest of

A.C., 170 P.3d 844, 845 (Colo. App. 2007) (a claimed error, without

a valid claim of prejudice, is not grounds for reversal).

III. Disposition

¶8 The judgment is affirmed.

JUDGE TOW and JUDGE BERGER concur.