In numerous situations, appellate courts have declined to reach the merits of an appeal because the lack of a reporter's transcript (or an authorized substitute) made it impossible for the Court to review a trial court's order. (See, for example, Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 273-274 transfer order; Maria P. v. Riles, supra, 43 Cal.3d at pp. 1295-1296 hearing on motion for attorney's fees; Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574-575 new trial motion hearing; In re Kathy P. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 91, 102 hearing to determine whether counsel was waived and the minor consented to informal adjudication; Boeken v. Philip Morris Inc. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1640, 1672 judge's ruling on a requested jury instruction; Vo v. Las Virgenes Municipal Water Dist. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 440, 447 trial transcript when attorney's fees sought; Estate of Fain (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 973, 992 surcharge hearing; Hodges v. Mark (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 651, 657 nonsuit motion; Interinsurance Exchange v. Collins (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1445, 1448 monetary sanctions hearing; Null v. City of Los Angeles (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1528,1536 reporter's transcript failed to reflect contents of a special jury instructions; Buckhart v. San Francisco Residential Rent Etc., Bd. (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1032,1036 hearing on Code of Civ. Proc., 1094.5 petition; Sui v. Landi (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 383, 385-386 hearing on a motion to dissolve a preliminary injunction; Rossiter v. Benoit (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 706, 713-714 demurrer hearing; Calhoun v. Hildebrandt (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 70, 71-73 transcript of argument to jury; Ehman v. Moore (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 460, 462 failure to secure either a reporter's transcript or a settled statement as to offers of proof; Wetsel v. Garibaldi (1958) 159 Cal.App.2d 4, 10 order confirming arbitration award.) In Foust v. San Jose Const. Co., Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 181, the court stated: "The reason for this follows from the cardinal rule of appellate review that a judgment or order of the trial court is presumed correct and prejudicial error must be affirmatively shown. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) 'In the absence of a contrary showing in the record, all presumptions in favor of the trial court's action will be made by the appellate court. "If any matters could have been presented to the court below which would have authorized the order complained of, it will be presumed that such matters were presented."' (Bennett v. McCall (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 122, 127.) This general principle of appellate practice is an aspect of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error. (State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Pietak (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 600, 610.) '"A necessary corollary to this rule is that if the record is inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the decision of the trial court should be affirmed.'" (Gee v. American Realty & Construction, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1416.) 'Consequently, appellant has the burden of providing an adequate record. Failure to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against appellant.' (Hernandez v. California Hospital Medical Center (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 498, 502.)" (Foust v. San Jose Const. Co., Inc., supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at p. 187.)