Court Opinion

ID: 9536092
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 06:54:49.89469+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:27.186093
License: Public Domain

McCOMB, J.
I dissent on the jurisdictional issue. The judgment of October 10, 1967, was made after the court had lost control of the cause and was therefore in excess of jurisdiction and void. The record indicates that the motion for new trial was timely made and that the trial court did make a ruling on the motion within the statutory time limits. The question presented is whether this ruling was a sufficient exercise of jurisdiction to comply with the statutory grant of power to modify a judgment without a retrial. In my opinion it was not.
Code of Civil Procedure section 655 et seq. set forth the time and manner in which the court may act upon motions for new trial. These provisions are jurisdictional and must be strictly observed. (Siegal v. Superior Court (1968) 68 Cal.2d 97, 100 [65 Cal.Rptr. 311, 436 P.2d 311]; Fomco, Inc. v. Joe Maggio, Inc. (1961) 55 Cal.2d 162, 166 [10 Cal.Rptr. 462, 358 P.2d 918].) The trial court has no inherent power to grant a new trial. (Diamond v. Superior Court (1922) 189 Cal. 732, 736 [210 P.36].) Review of the code sections and their legislative history indicates a continuing concern on the part of the Legislature that a timely and efficacious procedure be established to avoid the expense and delays of an appeal by allowing the trial court to re-examine the facts (§ 662) or issues of law (Carney v. Simmonds (1957) 49 Cal.2d 84, 90 [315 P.2d 305]) after a trial and decision. It was originally empowered to do this by granting a new trial. Subsequently it was given broad powers to do.' this by denying a new trial. In either case it was required to act within a limited period of time.
Originally it was required that a motion for new trial be made within four judicial days after judgment was rendered and that the court “decide summarily on such application” (Stats. 1851, 1st Sess. ch. XX, § § 252, 257). The time for filing has been changed from time to time (30 days, Cede Civ. Proc., § 659, enacted 1872), 15 days (§ 659, 1967 amend.). It was limited to 10 days (1951 amend.) at the times here involved. There have been legislative changes made in the time within which the court must act. (See Historical Note, West’s Anno. Code, Code Civ. Proc., § 660.) In 1915 hearing and disposition of the motion for new trial was given precedence over all other matters except criminal cases, probate matters and cases actually on trial. In 1929 the time within which the court could act on the motion was fixed at 60 days from and after service on *689the moving party of written notice of entry of judgment or, if such notice was not served, then 60 days after filing the notice of intention to move for new trial. Following a study by the California Law Revision Commission that disclosed variance and confusion as to what acts must be done by a judge to make an effective ruling within the 60 days in which he has jurisdiction to act on the motion, section 660 was amended in 1959 to provide that “A motion for a new trial is not determined within the meaning of this section until an order ruling on the motion (1) is entered in the permanent minutes of the court or (2) is signed by the judge and filed with the clerk. The entry of a new trial order in the permanent minutes of the court shall constitute a determination of the motion even though such minute order as entered expressly directs that a written order be prepared, signed and filed. The minute entry shall in all cases show the date on which the order actually is entered in the permanent minutes, but failure to comply with this direction shall not impair the validity or effectiveness of this order.” (§ 660; Siegal v. Superior Court (1968) supra, 68 Cal.2d 97, 100-101 [65 Cal.Rptr. 311, 436 P.2d 311 ], McCordic v. Crawford (1943) 23 Cal.2d 1, 6 [142 P.2d 7]; 34 State Bar J., 643.) Obviously this language required that a subsequent order be correlative to and not different from the determination of the court as entered in a timely minute order. There is nothing which indicates that the court could extend beyond 60 days the time within which it could “pass upon,” “rule upon” or make a determination of the motion for new trial.
In 1929 an innovation was made by the Legislature when it enacted section 662, allowing the trial court to make changes in the findings or conclusions of law and to give an entirely different judgment without granting a new trial. This section reads: “In ruling on such motion, in a cause tried without a jury, the court may, on such terms as may be just, change or add to the findings, modify the judgment, in whole or in part, vacate the judgment, in whole or in part, and grant a new trial on all or part of the issues, or, in lieu of granting a new trial, may vacate and set aside the findings and judgment and reopen the case for further proceedings and the introduction of additional evidence with the same effect as if the case had been reopened after the submission thereof and before findings had been filed or judgment rendered. Any judgment thereafter entered shall be subject to the provisions of sections 657 and 659 [motions for new trial] of this code.” The obvious purpose in giving these broad alternative powers to the court was to subserve the ends of justice and to prevent unnecessary delays in cases where the court deemed itself mistaken as to its previous view of the evidence or in the application thereto of the law, without the necessity of granting a new trial. (Spier v. Lang (1935) 4 Cal.2d 711, 714 [53 P.2d 138]; see 3 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (1954) § 35, p. 2083, 1967 Supp., p. 852.) In Spier we stated at page 715: “The language of *690section 660 of the Code of Civil Procedure indicates that so long as the court ‘passes’ on the motion within the sixty-day period, it has lawfully exercised its jurisdiction to determine the motion, and the filing of the formal order or findings and judgment ‘thereafter,’ when the time of filing is subsequent to the last day of the sixty-day period, does not amount to a denial of the motion by operation of law.” There is no intent indicated in the language of the statute that different provisions may be incorporated in the formal order or findings and judgment entered after the 60-day period had elapsed. An order or judgment (i.e., findings) may be signed and filed thereafter (De Arman v. Connelly (1933) 134 Cal.App. 173, 180 [25 P.2d 24]) but if different than and not made pursuant to an order entered within the 60-day period they are in excess of the court’s jurisdiction and void. (See Avery v. Associated Seed Growers, Inc. (1963) 211 Cal.App.2d 613, 628-629 [27 Cal.Rptr. 625].)
In ruling on the motion for new trial the court may do any one or more of the things permitted by section 662 (Oliver v. Boxley (1960) 181 Cal.App.2d 471, 477 [5 Cal.Rptr. 468]). It is preferable that the statutory language be used in the order ruling on the motion but some departure in terminology is permissible if the court’s intention is clear (Aced v. Hobbs-Sesack Plumbing Co. (1961) 55 Cal.2d 573, 578 [12 Cal.Rptr. 257, 360 P.2d 897]) or if ambiguities therein may be reconciled by construction to determine the substance and legal effect of the order. (See discussion of cases in 3 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (1954) § 37, pp. 2085-2086.) The order should be in the present tense, and is subject to criticism and possible invalidity if it is in the future tense (Pacific Home v. County of Los Angeles (1953) 41 Cal.2d 855, 857 [264 P.2d 544]). Whatever number of hearings may be held on the motion, a determinative order ruling thereon should be made within the 60-day mandatory period.
The record herein indicates that at the trial the court permitted plaintiff, over defendant’s objections, to introduce in evidence a letter from Matt Thome, defendant’s predecessor in title, that was highly prejudicial to defendant’s case. Neither party had called Thome as a witness. No continuance was requested so that he could be called. Judgment was rendered on September 19, 1966. Motion for new trial urged, among other grounds, errors in law, occurring at the trial and excepted to by the moving party. On November 10, 1966, the court ruled on this motion. Its order recited the grounds of the motion “. . . and (3) that errors in law occurring during the trial and more specifically the introduction of a letter by the witness Thome. . . . This Court does concede that it was influenced to some degree by the evidence introduced from the witness Thome. The Court further feels that ... it may well be that Mr. Thome’s evidence should have been given in person and subject to cross-examination. Therefore, the *691Court rules as follows: The matter will be reopened to take the testimony of Mat Thome but the Court does not desire to have any of the other witnesses recalled. If either counsel has newly discovered evidence, they may so introduce it at the time of hearing to take additional evidence. All other matters will be kept in abeyance pending the submission of the causes under the procedure hereinabove outlined. . . .” Hearing was held in February 1967 after the 60 days had expired. In March the court entered an order stating “The Court is satisfied that further evidence indicates that the previous ruling of the Court in this matter should not be disturbed. Counsel for plaintiff shall prepare the necessary documents.” The next order entered was on August 4, changing the court’s decision, and pursuant thereto amended findings and conclusions were filed on October 10, 1967, more than a year after the original judgment of September 19, 1966.
The order of November 10, 1966, was entered within the 60-day period. It purported to exercise some of the alternative powers granted by section 662. It did not purport to grant a new trial. Had the court granted a new trial, either full or limited, it would have then exhausted its jurisdiction to rule further on the motion, and any further trial proceedings would not be subject to the time limitations of these sections. The “in lieu of granting a new trial” provisions are, as they state, “in lieu” thereof, and do not constitute granting a new trial. They empower the court to do certain things in denying the motion. Without taking any new evidence the court may vacate or add to any of the findings. It may re-open for further proceedings and additional evidence “with the same effect as if the case had been reopened after the submission thereof and before findings had been filed or judgment rendered.” There is no express extension of time within which the court may act after it re-opens. As hereinabove discussed, section 660 requires a definitive, not an interlocutory or non-determinative order, to be entered within the 60-day period. Interpreting section 662 to allow a trial court to enter an order vacating and reopening pursuant to these “in lieu” provisions, with unlimited time thereafter to continue further hearings and to make further determinations, is contrary to the clear intent of these sections. The concluding sentence of section 662 that “Any judgment thereafter entered shall be subject to the provisions of sections 657 and 659 of this code” specifically allows apparently unlimited motions for new trial to be made as to any judgment or definitive order made within the 60 days, subject of course to the requirement that if the actual findings are signed and filed after the 60-day period the motion is premature if taken before such time. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 459 [20 Cal.Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937]; 3 Witkin, supra, 2072.)
The “in lieu” provisions empower the court to vacate and set aside the *692findings and reopen the proceedings, with the effect “as if the case had been reopened after the submission thereof and before findings had been filed or judgment rendered.” If the further proceedings are required to be concluded within the 60-day period, and no final determination is made within that time, it would follow that any intermediate orders made pursuant to a motion for new trial purporting to set aside any portion of the findings or conclusions would be ineffective, and that the court’s jurisdiction to act thereafter would terminate by operation of law. There was nothing in the record nor in the order of November 10, 1966, which indicated that extensive hearings were contemplated or that the court thought that the indicated error of law was sufficient to support the granting of an entirely new trial. It did not expressly vacate and set aside the findings. It could be implied that it was postponing that step until it determined, after the introduction of further evidence (i.e., the testimony of Thome), whether any change should be made in its findings. In aid of this interpretation, the language of the March 14, 1967, memo opinion is enlightening. It reads “On Order of the Court, the above entitled matter was set for further hearing to determine if any further evidence would alter the opinion heretofore rendered in favor of the plaintiff. The Court is satisfied that further evidence indicates that the previous ruling of the Court in this matter should not be disturbed. ...” Had this opinion been entered as a minute order prior to the expiration of the 60-day period (see 3 Witkin, supra, p. 1873) it might have been a sufficient determination to support the original judgment. If the original findings are construed to have been ipso facto vacated by the order of November 10, 1966, it might have supported the resigning and filing of the same findings at a time subsequent to the 60-day period. However the jurisdiction of the court to proceed had expired before March 14, 1967, and the court’s power to act on the motion for new trial had expired by operation of law.
The second motion made by defendant, dated April 3, 1967, was entitled “Notice of Intention to Move for New Trial Limited to Purpose of Taking Additional Testimony and Adding to Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, Section 662.” As a motion for new trial it was premature, and ineffective for any purpose, having been filed more than 60 days from the entry of the original judgment and no judgment was thereafter rendered to which it could apply. The majority opinion is in error in stating that the motion was denied by operation of law on June 2, 1967, when the court failed to act on the motion (ante p. 684). The motion was premature if intended to apply to the order of the court of March 14, 1967. Conceding arguendo that that order was made at a time when the court retained jurisdiction to act, the necessary documents ordered by the court (i.e., findings and conclusions) had *693not been signed or filed. The court therefore did not “lose" jurisdiction to act on the motion; if never gained jurisdiction.
The points and authorities filed in support of the second motion, and the court’s subsequent order of August 4, 1967, purporting to rule on the motion, indicate that this second motion was considered by the court as a “motion to take additional testimony after the court had previously ruled that the initial evidence had not justified a finding that the road in question was dedicated to the public.” This indicates that the court considered that the matter was still before the court after submission and before findings were filed, and considered that the matter was still subject to motions to reopen although not to motions for new trial. In my opinion the court had lost jurisdiction at the end of the original 60 days.
For the reasons hereinabove expressed I would reverse the 1967 judgment appealed from.
Appellant’s petition for a rehearing was denied February 25, 1970.