judgment to determine error in California

2024In the absence of a statement of decision, we accordingly only look to the judgment to determine error. “[T]he necessary findings of ultimate facts will be implied and the only issue on appeal is whether the implied findings are supported by substantial evidence.” (Shaw v. County of Santa Cruz (2008) 170 Cal.App.4th 229, 267 .) We also note the amount of damages awarded is generally “‘“a fact question . . . [and] an award of damages will not be disturbed if it is supported by substantial evidence.”’” (Madani v. Rabinowitz (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 602 , 610.) Here, the judgment noted there were tr

2021In the absence of a statement of decision, a reviewing court looks only to the judgment to determine error.” (Shaw v. County of Santa Cruz (2008) 170 Cal.App.4th 229, 268 (Shaw).) Accordingly, although we will use the court’s tentative factual findings and conclusions of law as a guide in our review of the judgment, we will not construe the tentative so as to impeach the judgment.

2013(In re Marriage of Ditto (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 643, 646 (Ditto).) “This is because a trial court retains inherent authority to change its decision, its findings of fact, or its conclusions of law at any time before entry of judgment and then the judgment supersedes any memorandum or tentative decision or any oral comments from the bench. [Citations.] Thus, a trial judge’s prejudgment oral expressions do not bind the court or restrict its power to later declare final findings of fact and conclusions of law in the judgment. [Citation.] In the absence of a statement of decision, a reviewing court

2013(In re Marriage of Ditto (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 643, 646 (Ditto).) “This is because a trial court retains inherent authority to change its decision, its findings of fact, or its conclusions of law at any time before entry of judgment and then the judgment supersedes any memorandum or tentative decision or any oral comments from the bench. [Citations.] Thus, a trial judge’s prejudgment oral expressions do not bind the court or restrict its power to later declare final findings of fact and conclusions of law in the judgment. [Citation.] In the absence of a statement of decision, a reviewing court

2008(Darling, Hall & Rae v. Kritt (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1148, 1156-1157 [ 89 Cal.Rptr.2d 676 ]; Taormino v. Denny, supra, 1 Cal.3d at p. 684 .) Thus, a trial judge’s prejudgment oral expressions do not bind the court or restrict its power to later declare final findings of fact and conclusions of law in the judgment. ( Ditto, supra, 206 Cal.App.3d at pp. 646-647.) In the absence of a statement of decision, a reviewing court looks only to the judgment to determine error.

2008(Darling, Hall & Rae v. Kritt (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1148, 1156-1157 [ 89 Cal.Rptr.2d 676 ]; Taormino v. Denny, supra, 1 Cal.3d at p. 684 .) Thus, a trial judge’s prejudgment oral expressions do not bind the court or restrict its power to later declare final findings of fact and conclusions of law in the judgment. ( Ditto, supra, 206 Cal.App.3d at pp. 646-647.) In the absence of a statement of decision, a reviewing court looks only to the judgment to determine error.