Background
John Maxey Jr. sued Valerie A. Maxey in May 2024, alleging a single cause of action for breach of contract. The Fresno County Superior Court held a court trial on January 12, 2026, that lasted less than one hour and included brief testimony from Maxey and one other witness. Judge D. Tyler Tharpe entered judgment the next day after finding that Maxey had not carried his burden of proof. Maxey, representing himself on appeal, sought review of that judgment.
The trial court found insufficient evidence of an enforceable oral agreement allegedly made in 2015. It also determined that a July 2021 writing said to memorialize that agreement resulted from undue influence and duress by Maxey and was unenforceable. The court further described the writing as utterly ambiguous and, alternatively, illusory and lacking consideration. It additionally found that the evidence did not establish Maxey's performance of possible contractual obligations, such as demonstrating an ability to take over bills or paying off mortgages. The writing itself had not been offered or admitted into evidence.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal construed Maxey's opening brief liberally as challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the judgment. Maxey principally objected that the trial court accepted Valerie Maxey's account rather than his, denied threatening her into signing the writing, and disputed the findings concerning consideration and whether the contract was illusory. Although his brief used the phrase judicial bias, the appellate court understood the claimed bias to consist of the trial court's failure to rule in his favor.
The court held that Maxey forfeited his evidentiary challenge because he supplied neither a reporter's transcript nor an alternative agreed or settled statement. Consequently, the appellate record contained virtually no information about the evidence underlying the judgment. The court explained that it could not review the sufficiency of evidence that was not before it and that failure to procure one of those records was fatal to the claim. His citations to the July 2021 writing did not cure the problem because the writing was never introduced at trial, while most of his other citations concerned his amended complaint, which was not evidence.
The court grounded its ruling in the presumption that a trial court's judgment is correct and the appellant's obligation to demonstrate reversible error through an adequate record, record citations, and persuasive legal argument. It also stated that these requirements are not relaxed for self-represented parties, who are held to the same standards as attorneys. The judgment was affirmed, and Valerie Maxey was awarded her costs on appeal.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence must provide an appellate record containing the evidence the trial court considered.
- Failure to supply a reporter's transcript, agreed statement, or settled statement resulted in forfeiture of Maxey's challenge and was fatal to his appeal.
- A document never introduced into evidence at trial cannot be treated as evidence for the first time on appeal.
- Citations to an amended complaint do not supply evidentiary support because allegations in a complaint are not evidence.
- Self-represented appellants must satisfy the same record, citation, and legal-argument requirements as parties represented by attorneys.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how an inadequate appellate record can resolve an appeal without an independent assessment of whether the trial evidence supported the judgment. The court did not accept Maxey's invitation to reweigh the parties' credibility or reconstruct the trial evidence from his complaint and an unadmitted writing.
It also underscores the practical importance of obtaining a reporter's transcript or an authorized alternative when appealing after a short court trial. Even a trial lasting less than an hour requires a record of the evidence for meaningful substantial-evidence review, and self-representation does not excuse that requirement.
Read the full opinion (PDF) · Court docket