Marriage of Oram and Redding CA4/2

Opinion

Filed 6/23/26 Marriage of Oram and Redding CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

In re the Marriage of HUGH ORAM and TARA REDDING.

HUGH ORAM, E085341 Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. FAMSS2002912) v. OPINION TARA REDDING,

Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Shannon Suber,

Judge. Affirmed.

Tara A. Redding, in pro. per., for Appellant.

No Appearance for Respondent.

1 I.

INTRODUCTION

In this marriage dissolution action, Appellant, Tara Redding, proceeding in pro.

per., appeals the family court’s order denying her Request for Order (RFO) seeking

modification of the court’s orders regarding spousal support and the parties’ division of

property. We affirm.

II. 1 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Redding’s ex-husband Hugh Oram, filed for divorce in 2020. In February 2024,

the family court entered a judgment of dissolution, which ordered a division of the

parties’ property and ordered Oram to pay spousal support to Redding. In July 2024,

Redding filed a RFO seeking to modify the spousal support order and for orders related

to the division of the parties’ property. The family court denied the RFO. One day later,

Redding filed another RFO, again seeking a modification of the spousal support order

and the division of the parties’ property. The family court denied the RFO, and Redding

timely appealed.

1 Given our conclusion outlined below that Redding forfeited her claims of error on appeal, we provide only a brief recitation of the background of this case.

2 III.

DISCUSSION

Redding contends the family court’s erred by denying her RFO seeking

modification of the court’s spousal support order and orders dividing the parties’

property. We conclude Redding has forfeited any claim of error on appeal.

Redding has failed to meet her burden of showing reversible error in her opening 2 brief. The argument section in Redding’s opening brief reads in full: “Had the [family

court] Commissioner shown restraint and acted unbiasedly, both parties would have been

made whole, had a fair and adequate trial, proper division of community property,

Appellant’s pets wouldn’t have been killed, there would have been no abuse of authority

or favoritism, the Commissioner would have kept her personal feelings to herself,

allowed the law to be the pinnacle of the case, much heartache and strife could have been

avoided. Trust in t[h]e judicial system would remain firm, but now the trust is wavering,

and needing the courts makes the Appellant fearful, See Furey v. Commission on Judicial

Performance 43 Cal.3d 1297, Kloepfer v. Commission on Judicial Performance 49 Cal.3d

826, Censure of Judge Fred L. Heene, Jr., Inquiry Concerning Judge D. Ronald Hyde 48

Cal.4th CJP Supp. 329, Public Admonishment of Commissioner Alan H. Friedenthal,

Public Admonishment of Judge Joan Comparet-Cassani, Public Admonishment of Judge

James M. Petrucelli.”

2 Because Oram did not file a respondent’s brief, Redding did not file a reply brief.

3 An appellant, like Redding, must provide “‘some cogent argument supported by

legal analysis’” to prevail on appeal. (Champir, LLC v. Fairbanks Ranch Assn. (2021) 66

Cal.App.5th 583, 597.) If the appellant fails to do so, “[w]e may and do ‘disregard

conclusory arguments that are not supported by pertinent legal authority.’” (United

Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 142, 153.) That is what

we do here. Redding’s one-paragraph argument section provides no meaningful

argument supported by appropriate legal authority or analysis. Instead, Redding simply

asserts without any explanation that the family court made a series of errors—acted

biased against her, failed to hold a “fair and adequate trial,” and failed to properly divide

community property—and then claims those errors harmed her. Redding’s citation to

various judicial discipline cases “without pertinent argument or an attempt to apply the

law to the circumstances of this case, is inadequate” to show prejudicial error. (Benach v.

County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 852.)

As a reviewing court, “[w]e are not required to examine undeveloped claims or to

supply arguments for the litigants.” (Allen v. City of Sacramento (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th

41, 52.) Given the inadequacies in Redding’s opening brief, we deem “all points asserted

in this appeal to be forfeited as unsupported by ‘adequate factual or legal analysis.’”

(Singh v. Lipworth (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 813, 817; see also United Grand Corp. v.

Malibu Hillbillies, LLC, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at p. 146 [“‘[T]o demonstrate error, an

appellant must supply the reviewing court with some cogent argument supported by legal

analysis and citation to the record.’”]; Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control v.

4 Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1066, 1078,

[“suggestions of error without supporting argument or authority other than general

abstract principles do not properly present grounds for appellate review”]; Wright v. City

of Los Angeles (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 683, 689 [“Generally, asserted grounds for appeal

that are unsupported by any citation to authority and that merely complain of error

without presenting a coherent legal argument are deemed abandoned and unworthy of

discussion.”].)

To the extent Redding raises arguments in the nearly 20-page “Statement of the

Case” section of her opening brief, we decline to consider them. When assessing whether

Redding has met her burden on appeal, our review is guided by the headings in the

argument section of her opening brief. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B);

Opdyk v. California Horse Racing Bd. (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1826, 1830, fn. 4.) We

thus disregard any argument that is not clearly identified in a heading. (Opdyk v.

California Horse Racing Bd., supra, at p. 1830, fn. 4.) Nor do we consider arguments

made outside of the argument section of her opening brief. (See Evans v. Centerstone

Development Co. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 151, 165). Because there are no arguments

clearly identified in a heading in the Statement of the Case section of Redding’s opening

brief and they are not made in the argument section, we disregard any argument made in

the Statement of the Case section.

5 IV.

DISPOSITION

The family court’s December 23, 2024 order denying Redding’s RFO is affirmed.

Oram may recover his costs on appeal.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

CODRINGTON J.

We concur:

MILLER Acting P. J.

LEE J.