Krouzian v. Hagopian, 17870

• Decision Date: 21 January 1959
• Docket Number: No. 17870,17870
• Citation: 167 Cal.App.2d 251,334 P.2d 285
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: K. KROUZIAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Aram L. HAGOPIAN, Administrator of the Estate of Sol Zaven Hagopian, Alias, Deceased, Defendant and Respondent.

Page 285

334 P.2d 285

167 Cal.App.2d 251

K. KROUZIAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Aram L. HAGOPIAN, Administrator of the Estate of Sol Zaven Hagopian, Alias, Deceased, Defendant and Respondent.

No. 17870.

District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California.

Jan. 21, 1959.

Claude D. Perasso, San Francisco, for appellant.

Gately & Gately, Nubar Tashjian, Ralph Bancroft, San Francisco, for respondent.

BRAY, Justice.

Plaintiff appeals from an order denying his motion to vacate a previous judgment and to enter a different judgment.

Question Presented.

Were the previous findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment signed and entered through the trial court's inadvertence and mistake?

Record.

After a trial on April 26, 1957, the trial judge on May 8 signed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and on May 9 signed and had entered a judgment in favor of plaintiff for $200 (based on plaintiff's second cause of action), in favor of defendant on plaintiff's first cause of action, and granting defendant a nonsuit on plaintiff's third cause of action. Thereafter plaintiff moved to set aside said judgment and to substitute a different judgment therefor on the ground that the findings do not support the judgment, as the findings find in effect that all of the allegations of plaintiff's first and second causes of action are true, yet the conclusions of law and judgment state that defendant is entitled to judgment against plaintiff on the first cause of action. ¹ On June 5 ² a minute order signed by the trial judge was entered which stated: 'Order of the Court in the above-entitled matter. It appearing to the Court that the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law heretofore signed on May 8, 1957, and the Judgment herein signed May 9, 1957, were signed and entered herein by said Court through the said Court's own inadvertence, improvidence and mistake and that the said Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and said Judgment do not conform to or represent the views of the Court heretofore expressed and the intention of the said Court, now on said Court's own motion the signing and entry of said Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and said Judgment are ordered vacated and set aside and counsel for the defendant is ordered and directed to prepare and submit Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and a form of Judgment consistent with the Court's views heretofore expressed. It is further ordered that the motion to vacate judgment and enter a different judgment filed by plaintiff herein be and the same is hereby denied.'

Inadvertence and Mistake.

It is obvious by comparing the findings relating to the first cause of action with the conclusions of law and judgment that a mistake was made in either the findings or the conclusions of law and judgment as to that cause of action. The findings found the facts to be practically as alleged in that cause of action. ³ Thus either the findings on that first cause of action were correct and the conclusions and judgment were wrong, or vice versa. The trial judge said in the minute order that the findings of fact and conclusions of law and judgment were not those expressed by her. It clearly appears that they could not have been as no judge would intentionally sign such contradictory documents. It is well settled that a court has the power, regardless of the lapse of time, to correct judgments and orders on its own motion so as to make them conform to the judicial decision actually made. This power exists independently of statute. Meyer v. Porath, 1952, 113 Cal.App.2d 808, 811, 248 P.2d 984; Culligan v. Leider, 65 Cal.App.2d 51, 149 P.2d 894; Smith v. Smith, 157 Cal.App.2d 658, 661, 321 P.2d 886. Or as stated in Minardi v. Collopy, 1957, 49 Cal.2d 348, 352, 316 P.2d 952, 955: 'It is primarily for the trial judge to determine whether a decision misstated his real intention and whether the judgment as signed was an inadvertence. The trial court, independently of statute, has the power to correct its...