NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THOMPSON, J.

Defendant Cindy A. Kowalski appeals from an unlawful detainer judgment in favor of plaintiff Barbara Miano. Although unclear, it appears she challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the judgment and also appeals from the denial of her request for a stay of execution of the judgment. Defendant also claims the trial court prejudged the case. We find no error and affirm.

We take the facts primarily as outlined in plaintiff's brief. The substantive portion of defendant's brief is three pages. It contains no record references.1

Defendant and her minor daughter resided in a home in Westminster (Property); they paid no rent. The Property was owned by the Salem Family Trust (Trust), the trustor of which was Hassan S. Salem (Salem). At some point plaintiff became the trustee of the Trust.

Upon Salem's death, in June 2015 plaintiff as trustee quitclaimed the Property to herself. Thereafter she served on defendant a 60-day notice of termination of tenancy and a three-day notice to quit, seeking rent for the past 12 months. When defendant failed to vacate the Property, plaintiff filed the unlawful detainer action.

At trial defendant produced a two-page handwritten document purportedly signed by Salem (Document).2 It was dated December 13, 2013 and stated that all of Salem's prior trusts were cancelled. It also stated the Property was not to be sold and defendant and her daughter could stay for as long as they wanted. They had to pay only for utilities and plaintiff was to pay taxes, insurance, maintenance, and for appliances. The Document was notarized in August 2015.

After reviewing the evidence presented and arguments made, the court awarded possession of the Property to plaintiff and damages in favor of plaintiff for $32,500 in unpaid rent and $608 in costs.

Defendant claims the court erred "in determining the validity of the `Handwritten' letter" claiming it "clearly states" she could remain in the Property. This is the entire discussion.3

This is a substantial evidence argument. When we are faced with a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence we start with the presumption the judgment is correct. (Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 939, 957.) "`[T]he evidence [is viewed] in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, giving it the benefit of every reasonable inference.'" (Id. at pp. 957-958.) If "`"there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted," to support the findings,'" we "must uphold that finding." (Ibid.) We may not reweigh or resolve conflicts in the evidence or redetermine the credibility of witnesses. (Citizens Business Bank v. Gevorgian (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 602, 613.)

Here, the exhibit list shows plaintiff introduced the Trust and amendments and the quitclaim deed, among other documents, to prove her ownership. Defendant did not introduce the Document, and even if she had, the court was not required to determine it was valid. It is the trial court's duty to weigh evidence and decide its credibility. (ASP Properties Group, LP. v. Fard, Inc. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1257, 1266.) It is plain from the decision the court either decided the Document had no effect or did not consider it at all since it was not introduced. Either decision was reasonable.

Defendant also claims plaintiff did not produce evidence of a rental agreement setting out agreed upon rent. This was not necessary. The court's minute order states the parties stipulated reasonable rental value was $2,500. No further evidence was needed. (Spindell v. State Bar (1975) 13 Cal.3d 253, 261.)

Contrary to defendant's claim, we see no evidence the court had prejudged the case in plaintiff's favor because he "showed no concern[] or interest[] in the [defendant's] . . . case." Further making an adverse ruling does not show a judge is biased. It is the judge's duty "`to consider and pass upon the evidence produced before him, and when the evidence is in conflict, to resolve that conflict in favor of the party whose evidence outweighs that of the opposing party. The opinion thus formed, being the result of a judicial hearing, does not amount to [improper] bias and prejudice. . . .' [Citation.]" (Moulton Niguel Water Dist. v. Colombo (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1220.)

Finally defendant states the court should have granted her request for a stay of execution to delay eviction. Again, defendant fails to state any grounds as to why denial of the request was error. Nothing in the record supports the claim and we can only speculate as to what that might be.

In her request defendant relied on the Document. She also stated eviction would be an "extreme hardship," pointing out she has a minor daughter, does not have a job or money to pay for a new residence, and cannot work due to severe depression.

While these are all sympathetic facts they did not require the court to grant a stay. The request did not state how long execution should be stayed and it appears from the request defendant was not seeking a stay but was actually asking that the judgment never be enforced. The trial court had no power to deny enforcement of the judgment.

The judgment and postjudgment are affirmed. Plaintiff is entitled to costs on appeal.

BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J. and IKOLA, J., concurs.