Pacific Home v. Los Angeles County

Decision Date23 December 1953
Citation264 P.2d 544,41 Cal.2d 855
PartiesPACIFIC HOME v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY et al. L. A. 22498.
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

Newby, Holder & Newby and Charles R. Newby, Los Angeles, for plaintiff and appellant.

Harold W. Kennedy, County Counsel, Arvo Van Alstyne and Gordon Boller, Deputy County Counsel, Ray L. Chesebro, City Atty., and Louis A. Babior, Deputy City Atty., Los Angeles, for defendants and appellants.

SPENCER, Justice.

This is a companion case to Pacific Home v. County of Los Angeles, 264 P.2d 539. Plaintiff sought here to recover taxes paid under protest for the tax year 1949-1950. The record presents the added consideration of an amendment of plaintiff's articles of incorporation as related to the requirement of irrevocable dedication. Revenue & Taxation Code, § 214, subd. (6). The trial court ultimately ruled against plaintiff and entered judgment for defendants; and from such judgment, plaintiff appeals.

In 1948 and prior to the first Monday of March, 1949 (the tax-lien date) plaintiff's articles of incorporation were amended. The amendments consisted of eliminating the provision for the annual payment to the retired ministers' fund and engrafting a limitation upon the disposition of plaintiff's corporate assets coming under the control of the Southern California-Arizona Annual Conference of the Methodist Church as the result of plaintiff's dissolution. In such event it is provided that plaintiff's properties should be 'used for the benefit of worthy aged and infirm persons and for such other charitable work as may be consistent with the history and purposes of the (plaintiff) corporation.'

The court first found that on the first Monday of March, 1949, plaintiff and its properties met the requirements of the purposes of the (plaintiff) corporation.' then concluded that the properties were irrevocably dedicated to religious, hospital or charitable purposes, and upon liquidation, dissolution, or abandonment by plaintiff would not have inured to the benefit of any private person excpet a fund, foundation or corporation organized and operated for such purposes. Accordingly, judgment for plaintiff was entered on February 18, 1952. Defendants made a motion for a new trial. On April 1, 1952, at the conclusion of the hearing of the motion, the court said: 'I will deny all motions.' (Motions for a new trial in the three companion cases were heard at the same time.) The clerk made a memorandum to that effect but did not make an entry in the minutes. On April 2, 1952, the trial court instructed the clerk that the motion would stand submitted. Thereupon the clerk made a minute entry dated April 1, 1952, stating that the motion was submitted. On April 15, 1952, the court signed and filed a written order vacating the findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment; ordering judgment for defendants; directing the preparation of new findings, conclusions, and judgment in accord with those in the three companion cases; and denying the motion for a new trial. In the new findings the only significant change is the court's finding against plaintiff on the issue of irrevocable dedication of its properties. Revenue & Taxation Code, § 214, subd. (6). Judgment was then entered for defendants on April 17, 1952, and plaintiff appeals therefrom.

A procedural question first arises as the result of defendants' precautionary appeal taken from the judgment of February 18, 1952. Plaintiff takes the position that the trial court's oral statement at the conclusion of the hearing of the motion for a new trial, 'I will deny all motions,' was effective immediately to deny the motion, and that the court did not have jurisdiction thereafter to vacate the findings, conclusions and first judgment, and enter a new and different judgment. There is no merit to this contention. The court's oral pronouncement was in the future tense and was never entered in the minutes. The formal written order which the court later signed was the only order entered in the minutes. An order ruling on...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Marriage of Drake, In re
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 27 Marzo 1997
    ...motion does not become effective until it is filed in writing with the clerk or entered in the minutes. (Pacific Home v. County of Los Angeles (1953) 41 Cal.2d 855, 857, 264 P.2d 544; Ketscher v. Superior Court (1970) 9 Cal.App.3d 601, 604, 88 Cal.Rptr. 357; see 7 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d......
  • Trujillo v. City of Los Angeles
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 27 Octubre 2022
    ...466 ["oral ruling on a motion does not become effective until it is ... entered in the minutes"]; Pacific Home v. County of Los Angeles (1953) 41 Cal.2d 855, 857, 264 P.2d 544 [same, as to order ruling on a motion for new trial].) But this split is not controlling here. The summary judgment......
  • Marriage of Micalizio, In re
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 14 Marzo 1988
    ...153, 155, 73 P.2d 888.) An appeal from a superseded judgment is a nullity and should be dismissed. (Pacific Home v. County of Los Angeles (1953) 41 Cal.2d 855, 858, 264 P.2d 544; Medak v. Cox (1970) 12 Cal.App.3d 70, 74, 90 Cal.Rptr. 452.) Under these authorities, Gerry's assertion that Rob......
  • Avery v. Associated Seed Growers, Inc.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 9 Enero 1963
    ...the procedure authorized by section 662 of the Code of Civil Procedure no new trial is granted. (Pacific Home v. County of Los Angeles (1953) 41 Cal.2d 855, 857-858, 264 P.2d 544; Estate of Perkins (1943) 21 Cal.2d 561, 567-568, 134 P.2d 231; Spier v. Lang (1935) 4 Cal.2d 711, 714-715, 53 P......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT