NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

GILBERT, P.J.

Destiny Gularte, Donald Karotick and Robert Rodriguez (appellants) appeal a March 9, 2010 post-judgment order awarding trial court costs of $6,958.86 in favor of respondents Danine Pradia and Darrin Stoker (respondents) after respondents prevailed in a will contest. The trial court granted respondents' petition to probate a 2005 will and rejected appellants' petition to probate a 1997 will. In a companion appeal involving these same parties, we affirmed the judgment. (Estate of Stoker (Mar. 3, 2011, B220317) __ Cal.App.4th __.)

In this second appeal, we affirm the trial court's order granting costs to respondents.

FACTS

The trial court granted respondents' petition to probate a 2005 will and rejected appellants' petition to probate a 1997 will. The court entered judgment against appellants on September 28, 2009. Respondents subsequently filed a memorandum of costs. They sought, among other things, costs for filing fees, deposition costs, ordinary and expert witness fees, costs for the preparation of exhibits, court reporter fees and parking costs.

Appellants filed a motion to strike those costs. The trial court rejected a substantial portion of the costs sought by respondents. It disallowed costs in the total amount of $12,238.43, leaving a balance of recoverable costs of $6,958.86.

DISCUSSION

Costs

A prevailing party is entitled to recover reasonable trial court costs. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (b)); Boonyarit v. Payless Shoesource, Inc. (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1188, 1192.) Respondents prevailed in the trial court.

Appellants make no claim that the trial court lacked the authority to award costs or that it abused its discretion in deciding the amount. Instead they make only a contingent claim for reversal of the cost order based solely on the result of a companion appeal in this court.

In their opening brief, appellants state, "Should the orders appealed from in B220317 be reversed, the Appellants respectfully request the Court remand the cost award back to the trial court for directions to reconsider its award consistent with the Remittitur in Appeal No. B220317."

We affirmed the judgment in case No. B220317. Because appellants have raised no other issues and have not cited any case authority, they have not shown error and the cost order must be sustained. (Crestmar Owners Assn. v. Stapakis (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1223, 1232.)

The judgment is affirmed. Costs on appeal are awarded in favor of respondents.

We concur:

YEGAN, J.

PERREN, J.