The Court explained there was no reporter's transcript of the hearing on the motion for attorney fees, and it was Ford’s duty (as the appellant) to provide a settled statement to support its appellate claims. “It is the burden of the party challenging the fee award on appeal to provide an adequate record to assess error. [Citations.] Here, defendants should have augmented the record with a settled statement of the proceeding. [Citations.] Because they failed to furnish an adequate record of the attorney fee proceedings, defendants’ claim must be resolved against them.” [Citation.]
The Court went on to reject Ford's claim the order could be deemed "excepted to," finding the appellant was confusing "appealability with reviewability," as well as adding in brief comments about the jurisdiction of a trial court to rule on a motion to vacate after a notice of appeal had been filed and reiterating new issues could not be raised on appeal.
Ford's appellate counsel may have been attempting to make the best of a bad situation which was not remedial. Who knows without reading the record? The Court of Appeal did indicate a settled statement procedure was available, which increasingly will be necessary in these days of hearings sans reporters. The other point here is that procedure matters, and litigants--from powerful corporations on down the most humble-- can benefit from specialized appellate expertise so as to put your best foot forward and attempt to make that silk purse out of your sow's ear of a case.