ONCALL
...Family Law
......Procedure After Trial/Hearing
 33 Cards On This Topic:
  • Defendants forfeited evidentiary errors on appeal where they did not cite the record or legal authority.
  • Default judgment properly set aside where H failed to comply with the statutory disclosure requirements.
  • A trial ct. determination that evades appellate review cannot be given preclusive effect in subsequent litigation.
  • A trial ct. has inherent authority to reconsider and retroactively modify final temporary support orders sua sponte, regardless of how it became aware of the error, so long as the modification is based on the original evidence.
  • There is no requirement for the trial ct. to file a motion prior to sua sponte reconsidering an order.
  • Because a dismissal with prejudice following parties' settlement is a final judgment on the merits, appellate court can review trial ct.'s prejudgment attorneys fees and costs order.
  • CCP §1032 does not determine who is a prevailing party under CA's new car lemon law for purposes of an award of attorneys fees; "practical approach" to determining prevailing party applies.
  • Unlawful detainer judgment was not res judicata to back-due rent action that accrued in months other than the one month for which damages were awarded in the unlawful detainer action.
  • A judgment debtor is not entitled to the benefit of an agreement between two other parties that is entered into neither for the benefit of, nor at the expense of, the judgment debtor.
  • Applications for prejudgment attachment properly granted where defendant established probable validity of its claims.
  • An order granting an application for a prejudgment attachment is directly appealable.
  • A trial ct. retains jurisdiction over a non-final judgment that it renders, enabling a party to pursue final judgment and then appeal.
  • Consent judgments are not appealable.
  • Abuse of discretion for trial ct. to deny party's request for a settled statement based on its own view of what the party needed to appeal, and where court found it difficult to reconstruct the proceedings.
  • 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.
  • The trial ct. is not required to issue a written statement of decision pursuant to Fam. Code §3654 when it denies a motion to modify support.
  • Collateral estoppel cannot be used to overturn orders entered before the relied-upon order.
  • A final judgment given res judicata effect may later be denied res judicata effect where that judgment is reversed, and giving preclusive effect would result in manifest injustice.
  • Court of Appeal may treat appeal from an unappealable attorney fees order as a petition for writ of mandate in extraordinary circumstances.
  • CCP §473 cannot relieve a party from a jurisdictional bar.
  • Res judicata involves both claim preclusion and issue preclusion.
  • One final judgment rule discussed; temporary s/s orders are appealable per the collateral order exception.
  • An order denying a CCP §663 motion to vacate a final judgment is appealable even if it raises issues that could have been litigated on appeal of the judgment.
  • An order denying a renewed motion under CCP §1008(b) is not appealable.
  • Grant of writ of administrative mandamus ordering hospital's judicial review committee to conduct a disciplinary hearing is a final, appealable order.
  • Mother not estopped from challenging retroactive c/s order where retroactive provision contravenes public policy.
  • Appellants forfeited arguments that trial ct. improperly excluded lay and expert testimony where they presented no legal analysis or citation to legal authority.
  • Since the trial ct. is not required to make findings to support its ruling after a motion, Court of Appeal infers trial ct. made all favorable findings that are supported by substantial evidence.
  • CCP §340.6 one-year statute of limitation barred malpractice suit where the client could not have an objectively reasonable belief that former counsel was continuing to represent him after counsel’s motion to withdraw was served.
  • A court has jurisdiction to consider affidavits supporting a motion for a new trial that are untimely served under CCP §659a.
  • No error in granting CCP §473(b) relief where P's attorney mistakenly failed to pay change of venue fee; P not required to bring CCP §1008 motion for reconsideration.
  • Settlement agreement, entered into by W after the date the acts by the private judge creating disqualification arose, was void.
  • The private practice of many temporary judges presents a greater likelihood reasonable doubt can be cast on their impartiality than on that of permanent judges.


    •