Grable v. Damar Production Co.

• Decision Date: 25 February 1965
• Docket Number: No. 29089,29089
• Citation: 232 Cal.App.2d 510,43 Cal.Rptr. 16
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: D. B. GRABLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DAMAR PRODUCTION CO. et al., Defendants and Respondents. Civ.

Page 16

43 Cal.Rptr. 16

232 Cal.App.2d 510

D. B. GRABLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DAMAR PRODUCTION CO. et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Civ. No. 29089.

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 4, California.

Feb. 25, 1965.

Blair & Raydon and Gerald T. Raydon, Los Angeles, for plaintiff and appellant.

Leland, Hoffman & Kalik and Sherman A. Silverman, Beverly Hills, for defendants and respondents.

KINGSLEY, Justice.

Plaintiff, a mortgagee in possession of certain real property, brought an action to foreclose the mortgage. On August 3, 1964, the court entered a judgment, fixing the sums due and owing from defendants to plaintiff, as of October 20, 1963, directing a sale of the property, and specifying the distribution of the proceeds of sale. Inasmuch as a substantial period of time had already intervened, and it was clear that more must necessarily intervene, before the sale could be accomplished, the judgment reserved jurisdiction in the court to adjust the ultimate liability between the parties by reason of additional credits to accrue to plaintiff for his expenses of operating, preserving, repairing and insuring the property, and credits to accrue to the meortgagors by reason of intervening profits from such operation. Thereafter, plaintiff sought and received a 'Supplemental Judgment,' which finally determined these matters as of September 21, 1964, and fixed an ultimate net balance due to plaintiff. This later judgment was entered on October 8, 1964. On October 13, 1964, plaintiff filed notices of appeal from both of these judgments. Defendants have now moved to dismiss the appeals as not taken within time.

At oral argument, and in the papers filed in connection with the motions, respondents admit that the appeal from the judgment entered on October 8, 1964, was timely and proper and that that appeal should not be dismissed. The motion, insofar as it applies to the second judgment will, therefore, be denied.

The sole issue is as to the attempted appeal from the judgment entered on August 3, 1964. Since no motion for new trial was ever made, the notice is obviously too late. (California Rules of Court, Rule 2.) But that is not the real issue. The judgment of August 3, 1964, was appealable, at any time, only if it was a 'final' judgment. (Code Civ.Proc. § 963.) If that judgment was final, as that term has been construed in the cases, the appeal must be dismissed as untimely, leaving, however, the timely appeal from the judgment of October 8, 1964, as an appeal from a special order made after judgment. However, if the judgment of August 3, 1964, was 'interlocutory,' the attempted appeal from it must be dismissed on that ground, but the valid appeal from the judgment of October 8, 1964...