Marriage of Arceneaux, In re

• Decision Date: 13 December 1990
• Docket Number: No. S010627,S010627
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: , 800 P.2d 1227 In re the Marriage of Gloria S. and John V. ARCENEAUX. Gloria S. ARCENEAUX, Respondent, v. John V. ARCENEAUX, Appellant.

Page 797

275 Cal.Rptr. 797

51 Cal.3d 1130, 800 P.2d 1227

In re the Marriage of Gloria S. and John V. ARCENEAUX Gloria S. ARCENEAUX, Respondent, v. John V. ARCENEAUX, Appellant.

No. S010627.

Supreme Court of California,

In Bank.

Dec. 13, 1990.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 20, 1991.

Carl I. Leibovitz, John V. Spilker and Jerrold S. Gross, Los Angeles, for appellant.

Ivie & McNeill, Robert H. McNeill, Jr., Los Angeles, and Michael J. Rand, Encino, for respondent.

MOSK, Justice.

Does a litigant who fails to bring to the attention of the trial court alleged deficiencies in the court's statement of decision waive the right to complain of such errors on appeal, thereby allowing the appellate court to make implied findings in favor of the prevailing party? We conclude that a waiver occurs in these circumstances pursuant to section 634 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

In a dissolution action, the trial court orally announced its intended decision on January 28, 1986. Husband filed a request for a statement of decision a few days later, and the court ordered wife to prepare the statement. Thereafter, wife served on husband a proposed statement of decision, and the court signed it after making a few modifications. Husband failed to object to either the proposed statement ¹ or the final statement, nor did he move for a new trial (Code Civ.Proc., § 657) ² or move to vacate the judgment (§ 663).

On appeal, husband asserted that the statement failed to decide two matters on which a decision was requested, and that it was deficient in three other respects. ³ The Court of Appeal refused to entertain these objections on the ground that husband had waived his reliance on the alleged deficiencies on appeal because he had not brought them to the attention of the trial court. Thus, the Court of Appeal inferred that the trial court decided in favor of wife as the prevailing party on any issue not addressed in the statement.

A judgment or order of a lower court is presumed to be correct on appeal, and all intendments and presumptions are indulged in favor of its correctness. (Aceves v. Regal Pale Brewing Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 502, 507, 156 Cal.Rptr. 41, 595 P.2d 619; Munoz v. Olin (1979) 24 Cal.3d 629, 635-636, 156 Cal.Rptr. 727, 596 P.2d 1143; Nestle v. City of Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 925, 101 Cal.Rptr. 568, 496 P.2d 480.)

Sections 632 and 634 (both as amended in 1981) set forth the means by which to avoid application of these inferences in favor of the judgment. When the court announces its tentative decision, a party may, under section 632, request the court to issue a statement of decision explaining the basis of its determination, and shall specify the issues on which he is requesting the statement; following such a request, the party may make proposals relating to the contents of the statement. ⁴ Thereafter, under section 634, the party must state any objection he may have to the statement in order to avoid an implied finding on appeal in favor of the prevailing party. ⁵ The section declares that if omissions or ambiguities in the statement are timely brought to the trial court's attention, the appellate court will not imply findings in favor of the prevailing party. The clear implication of this provision, of course, is that if a party does not bring such deficiencies to the trial court's attention, he waives his right to claim on appeal that the statement was deficient in these regards, and hence the appellate court will imply findings to support the judgment. Furthermore, section 634 clearly refers to a party's need to point out deficiencies in the trial court's statement of decision as a condition of avoiding such implied findings, rather than merely to request such a statement initially as provided in section 632.

The statutes thus describe a two-step process: first, a party must request a statement of decision as to specific issues to obtain an explanation of the trial court's tentative decision (§ 632); second, if the court issues such a statement, a party claiming deficiencies therein must bring such defects to the trial court's attention to avoid implied findings on appeal favorable to the judgment (§ 634). The section does not specify the particular means that the party may use to direct the court's attention to the claimed defects in the statement.

In the case at bar husband essentially asserts that he was required to fulfill only the first step of this process, and that his request for a statement of decision as to certain issues was sufficient to bar the appellate court from drawing inferences in favor of wife even though he failed to bring the purported deficiencies in the statement to the trial court's attention.

In making this contention, however, husband does not address the express requirement of section 634 that a litigant point out deficiencies in the statement of decision. Instead, he relies on language in cases decided largely under prior versions of sections 632 and 634, which he asserts hold that an appellate court cannot draw the inference referred to in section 634 if a party either requested a statement of decision on an issue or challenged the ensuing statement itself.

The contention is without merit. Husband has apparently lost sight of the fact that the requirement of section 634 is that a claimed deficiency in the statement of decision must be brought to the trial court's attention. A party who asks only that the court explain its tentative decision by requesting a statement as to a particular issue obviously has not fulfilled this requirement. If husband's assertion were correct, the requirement of section 634 that errors or omissions in a statement of decision must be brought to the trial court's attention would be nullified.

Most of the cases on which husband relies were decided before 1981, at a time when section 632 provided that findings of fact and conclusions of law must be made at the request of a party. At that time section 634 provided that if "the court has not made findings as to all facts necessary to support the judgment or a finding on a material issue of fact is ambiguous or conflicting, and ... such omission, ambiguity or conflict was brought to the attention of the trial court either prior to entry of judgment or in conjunction with a motion under Section 657 or 663," the inference in favor of the prevailing party would not be drawn on appeal. (Stats.1968, ch. 716, § 2, p. 1418, italics added.) This version of section 634, like the current one, requires that omissions or ambiguities in the findings (now, statement of decision) be brought to the trial court's attention if the inference in favor of the judgment is to be avoided.

With a few exceptions, the authorities relied on by husband cite section 634 and declare that if a special finding is not requested, an implied finding supporting the judgment will be made. (E.g., Rees v. Department of Real Estate (1977) 76 Cal.App.3d 286, 291, 142 Cal.Rptr. 789 ["In interpreting the language of Code of Civil Procedure section 634, it has been held that a failure to file objections or counterfindings or to request special findings as therein provided, constitutes a waiver of any claim that such findings are not sufficiently specific"]; In re Marriage of Dawley (1976) 17 Cal.3d 342, 354, 131 Cal.Rptr. 3, 551 P.2d 323 ["The issue of whether or not undue influence has been exerted frames a question of fact [citations]; the trial court in the instant case, however, rendered no finding on that issue. Since [wife] did not invoke her right to request a special finding (see Code Civ.Proc., § 634), we may resort to an implied finding to uphold the judgment"]; Banville v. Schmidt (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 92, 102, 112 Cal.Rptr. 126 ["no attempt was made by [defendant] to request a special finding or otherwise to bring to the attention of the trial court any omission or ambiguity in the trial court's determination of [defendant's] negligence. (Code Civ.Proc., § 634 ...)"]; Associated Creditors' Agency v. Dunning Floor Covering, Inc. (1968) 265 Cal.App.2d 558, 559, 71 Cal.Rptr. 494 ["since none of the parties objected to the findings or conclusions of the court nor requested specific findings, we must resolve all conflicts and ambiguities in the findings in support of the judgment"].)

These references to a "special finding" or a "specific finding" do not support husband's assertion that a request to the trial court to render a statement of decision on an issue is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of section 634. A "special finding" in the present context is a finding on an issue necessary to support the judgment. (South Bay Irr. Dist. v. California-American Water Co. (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 944, 994, 133 Cal.Rptr. 166.) As used in the cases cited, the term "special finding" describes one means by which deficiencies in the findings may be brought to the trial court's attention, i.e., by a request for findings necessary to support the judgment that embody the views of the party proposing the findings. None of the cases even remotely suggests that, as a means of avoiding the inference, a litigant may choose between making an initial request for a finding on an issue and calling the trial court's attention to defects in the findings. Indeed, by their reliance on section 634, which clearly required that defects in the findings be raised in the trial court, these cases stand for the proposition that failure to raise such defects results in drawing the inference in favor of the prevailing party. As pointed out above, if a party is not required to challenge the findings of the trial court but may simply rely on the fact that he asked the court to find on a particular issue, section 634 becomes a nullity.

Our holding in Guardianship of Brown (1976) 16 Cal.3d 326, 128 Cal.Rptr. 10, 546 P.2d 298, illustrates the application of section 634 as it read during the period...