omission is harmless error in California

2024The court’s statement of decision is sufficient if it fairly discloses the court’s determination as to the ultimate facts and material issues in the case.’ ” (Thompson v. Asimos (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 970, 983 (Thompson).) In other words, “though a court fails to make a finding on a particular matter, if the judgment is otherwise supported, the omission is harmless error unless the evidence is sufficient to sustain a finding in favor of the complaining party which would have the effect of countervailing or destroying other findings.” (Nunes Turfgrass, Inc. v. Vaughan-Jacklin Seed Co. (1988) 200

2022(In re Marriage of Hardin (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 448, 453 .) And “[e]ven though a court fails to make a finding on a particular matter, if the judgment is otherwise supported, the omission is harmless error unless the evidence is sufficient to sustain a finding in favor of the complaining party.” (Nunes Turfgrass, Inc. v. Vaughan-Jacklin Seed Co. (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 1518, 1525 (Nunes).) We acknowledge the statement of decision simply notes there are “equitable bases for [the] decision” rather than identifying a particular theory for awarding equitable relief.

2025The court’s statement of decision is sufficient if it fairly discloses the court’s determination as to the ultimate facts and material issues in the case.’ ” (Thompson v. Asimos (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 970, 983 .) Even where “ ‘a court fails to make a finding on a particular matter, if the judgment is otherwise supported, the omission is harmless error 12. unless the evidence is sufficient to sustain a finding in favor of the complaining party which would have the effect of countervailing or destroying other findings.’ ” (Ibid.) Here, the ultimate fact upon which a decision was required by the tr

2025The court’s statement of decision is sufficient if it fairly discloses the court’s determination as to the ultimate facts and material issues in the case.’ [Citations.] ‘When this rule is applied, the term “ultimate fact” generally refers to a core fact, such as an essential element of a claim.’ [Citation.] ‘Ultimate facts are distinguished from evidentiary facts and from legal conclusions.’ [Citation.] Thus, a court is not expected to make findings with regard to ‘detailed evidentiary facts or to make minute findings as to individual items of evidence.’ In addition, ‘[e]ven though a court fai

2025Further, as discussed above, the judgment is supported by substantial evidence in the record. 28 their property.”16 (Cf. Mendez, supra, 3 Cal.App.5th at p. 263 . [recognizing the “unavoidable clash of individual interests” in organized society, observing that “that each individual in a community must put up with a certain amount of annoyance, inconvenience and interference,” and noting that “the law of torts does not attempt to impose liability or shift the loss in every case in which one person’s conduct has some detrimental effect on another,” italics omitted]; Eisen, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th a

2025Further, as discussed above, the judgment is supported by substantial evidence in the record. 28 their property.”16 (Cf. Mendez, supra, 3 Cal.App.5th at p. 263 . [recognizing the “unavoidable clash of individual interests” in organized society, observing that “that each individual in a community must put up with a certain amount of annoyance, inconvenience and interference,” and noting that “the law of torts does not attempt to impose liability or shift the loss in every case in which one person’s conduct has some detrimental effect on another,” italics omitted]; Eisen, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th a

2024The court’s statement of decision is sufficient if it fairly discloses the court’s determination as to the ultimate facts and material issues in the case.’ ” (Thompson v. Asimos (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 970, 983 (Thompson).) In other words, “though a court fails to make a finding on a particular matter, if the judgment is otherwise supported, the omission is harmless error unless the evidence is sufficient to sustain a finding in favor of the complaining party which would have the effect of countervailing or destroying other findings.” (Nunes Turfgrass, Inc. v. Vaughan-Jacklin Seed Co. (1988) 200

2023(F.P. v. Monier (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1099, 1108 [“a trial court's error in failing to issue a requested statement of decision is not reversible per se, but is subject to harmless error review”]; Thompson, supra, 6 Cal.App.5th at p. 983 [when “ ‘a court fails to make a finding on a particular matter, . . . the omission is harmless error unless the evidence is sufficient to sustain a finding in favor of the complaining party which would have the effect of countervailing or destroying other findings.’ ”].) At trial, to establish the implied easements, the Corrigans relied on, among other evidence: th

1990(People v. Porter (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 34, 39 [ 239 Cal.Rptr. 269 ]; People v. Blessing (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 835, 838-839 [ 155 Cal.Rptr. 780 ].) To remand for an express statement of reasons when the finding is amply supported by the record “would result in an exaltation of form over substance.” (People v. Bravot (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 93, 98 [ 227 Cal.Rptr. 810 ].) Accordingly, if the trial court’s finding that defendant exhibited compulsive behavior in committing the offense is supported by the record and there is nothing to suggest the offense was not the result of compulsive behavior, rem

1990(People v. Porter (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 34, 39 [ 239 Cal.Rptr. 269 ]; People v. Blessing (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 835, 838-839 [ 155 Cal.Rptr. 780 ].) To remand for an express statement of reasons when the finding is amply supported by the record “would result in an exaltation of form over substance.” (People v. Bravot (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 93, 98 [ 227 Cal.Rptr. 810 ].) Accordingly, if the trial court’s finding that defendant exhibited compulsive behavior in committing the offense is supported by the record and there is nothing to suggest the offense was not the result of compulsive behavior, rem

1990(People v. Porter (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 34, 39 [ 239 Cal.Rptr. 269 ]; People v. Blessing (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 835, 838-839 [ 155 Cal.Rptr. 780 ].) To remand for an express statement of reasons when the finding is amply supported by the record “would result in an exaltation of form over substance.” (People v. Bravot (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 93, 98 [ 227 Cal.Rptr. 810 ].) Accordingly, if the trial court’s finding that defendant exhibited compulsive behavior in committing the offense is supported by the record and there is nothing to suggest the offense was not the result of compulsive behavior, rem

1990(People v. Porter (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 34, 39 [ 239 Cal.Rptr. 269 ]; People v. Blessing (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 835, 838-839 [ 155 Cal.Rptr. 780 ].) To remand for an express statement of reasons when the finding is amply supported by the record “would result in an exaltation of form over substance.” (People v. Bravot (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 93, 98 [ 227 Cal.Rptr. 810 ].) Accordingly, if the trial court’s finding that defendant exhibited compulsive behavior in committing the offense is supported by the record and there is nothing to suggest the offense was not the result of compulsive behavior, rem

1990(People v. Porter (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 34, 39 [ 239 Cal.Rptr. 269 ]; People v. Blessing (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 835, 838-839 [ 155 Cal.Rptr. 780 ].) To remand for an express statement of reasons when the finding is amply supported by the record “would result in an exaltation of form over substance.” (People v. Bravot (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 93, 98 [ 227 Cal.Rptr. 810 ].) Accordingly, if the trial court’s finding that defendant exhibited compulsive behavior in committing the offense is supported by the record and there is nothing to suggest the offense was not the result of compulsive behavior, rem

1990(People v. Porter (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 34, 39 [ 239 Cal.Rptr. 269 ]; People v. Blessing (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 835, 838-839 [ 155 Cal.Rptr. 780 ].) To remand for an express statement of reasons when the finding is amply supported by the record “would result in an exaltation of form over substance.” (People v. Bravot (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 93, 98 [ 227 Cal.Rptr. 810 ].) Accordingly, if the trial court’s finding that defendant exhibited compulsive behavior in committing the offense is supported by the record and there is nothing to suggest the offense was not the result of compulsive behavior, rem