NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

OPINION

IKOLA, J.

Defendant David Larkin appeals from the judgment against him and in favor of plaintiff Yang Li. Larkin contends Li's claim against him was discharged in Larkin's chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding by operation of law, even though Larkin did not disclose it in his bankruptcy filings, and even though nothing in the appellate record indicates whether the claim or claims upon which the judgment was based arose before or after the filing of Larkin's bankruptcy petition.

The appellate record is meager. The initial clerk's transcript consisted of the docket; the proposed judgment submitted to the court by Li following a bench trial; Larkin's request for a statement of decision filed on September 18, 2014; Li's objections to the request for a statement of decision filed on September 19, 2014; Larkin's response to Li's objections filed on September 23, 2014; the November 6, 2014 judgment; and Larkin's notice of appeal with his designation of record. Subsequently, the parties stipulated to, and we granted Larkin's motions for, augmentation of the record with five purported trial exhibits and a partial reporter's transcript for a September 2, 2014 hearing. The partial reporter's transcript contains the parties' closing statements and the court's ruling. The court ruled: "I think that the evidence is overwhelming in favor of the plaintiff. Mr. Larkin, I think you're at a huge disadvantage because of the documents that supposedly supported your position, I don't have and can't consider as evidence. So I'm holding in favor of the plaintiff. . . ." The court confirmed the amount of the judgment was $1.2 million.

The purported trial exhibits consist of (1) a copy of Larkin's voluntary chapter 7 bankruptcy petition filed May 25, 2011 (which does not disclose Li's claim against Larkin); (2) a January 6, 2012 letter purportedly from Home Depot awarding business to Aligned Products and Larkin, but not signed by Larkin in acceptance; (3) an April 13, 2012 letter purportedly from Home Depot awarding business to CIXI Import and Export Company LTD and William F. Chen, but not signed by Chen in acceptance; (4) a purported copy of an e-mail from "Betty" to Li; and (5) a purported copy of an e-mail from Li to Larkin. We call these exhibits "purported trial exhibits" because nothing in the appellate record indicates whether the court admitted any of these documents into evidence.

Finally, and despite the lateness of the request, we grant Larkin's September 16, 2015 opposed motion to further augment the record with Li's March 22, 2012 complaint and September 1, 2014 trial brief. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.155(a)(1)(A).) But those documents do not suggest that all of Li's claims predate Larkin's May 25, 2011 bankruptcy petition. Quite the opposite; Li's complaint alleges that in March 2012, Larkin converted the "Monique Feather Products" valued at $1 million or greater and also converted the "Aligned pet supply inventory" and "Aligned heaters." Li's trial brief claimed damages, inter alia, for the alleged conversion of the feather products in the amount of $500,000, the heaters inventory in the amount of $360,000, and the value of a Home Depot contract (apparently related to the heaters) in the amount of $540,000. Those acts were all alleged to have occurred in 2012, nearly a year after Li's bankruptcy petition was filed.

Notably, nothing in the appellate record shows that Larkin ever received a discharge in bankruptcy. For all we know, the bankruptcy petition was voluntarily dismissed soon after it was filed. And nothing in the appellate record shows that Larkin either pleaded or proved that Li's claims were discharged in bankruptcy.

Thus, Larkin has failed to provide us with an adequate record for review. He bears the burden "to provide this court with a record adequate to evaluate" his contention that Li's creditor's claim against him was discharged in his bankruptcy proceeding despite his failure to disclose it in his bankruptcy filings. (Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 121, 132.) "`A judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct.'" (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) "`Failure to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against [appellant].'" (Foust v. San Jose Construction Co., Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 181, 187.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Li is entitled to an award of costs on appeal.

O'LEARY, P. J. and FYBEL, J., concurs.