Motion to Vacate Judgment
Estate of J. Carl Treise, PR040209, and In re: Rose E. Treise Trust, 17PR-0109
Hearing: Motion to Vacate Judgment
Date: June 10, 2026
The Court held trial in these matters in July and August 2024. The matters are related but are not consolidated. The Court issued its Statement of Decision and Judgment on March 17, 2026. Currently on calendar is Kim Treise Mathis’s Motion to Vacate Judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 663. 1 Mathis argues “the decision is erroneous, incorrect, inconsistent with and/or not supported by the facts.” (Ntc. of Mtn., p. 2, ll. 12-13.) In support, Mathis submits a forty-five page appendix setting out perceived errors in the Court’s Statement of Decision and Judgment.
In response, Sandra Treise Natali argues Mathis’ motion is untimely because she did not file the supporting memorandum of points and authorities and accompanying documents within ten days of filing a Notice of Intent. (§§ 659a, 663a, subd. (d) [incorporating section 659a deadlines to motions to vacate a judgment]). 2 The deadline for filing these supporting documents is not jurisdictional. (Kabran v. Sharp Memorial Hosp. (2017) 2 Cal.5th 330, 342.) Natali’s reliance on Conservatorship of Townsend (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 691 is misplaced. The court in that case discussed the separate deadline to file the notice of intent under section 663a, subdivision (a). (Id. at p. 702.)
Natali, however, also cites early to mid-twentieth century cases for the proposition that affidavits which have not been filed within the period prescribed by section 659a cannot, in the absence of an extension of time for filing them, serve as a basis for a motion for new trial. Like tardy affidavits, the failure to timely file a supporting memorandum is also grounds for denying the motion. (In re Marriage of Steiner & Hosseini (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 519, 529-530 [addressing motion for new trial]; Wagner v. Singleton (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 69, 72 [procedure for right to move for a new trial “must be closely followed”].)
Here, the supporting memorandum was filed a day late on April 14, 2026, at 8:00 a.m. Mathis reports she electronically served a courtesy copy of her supporting memorandum on opposing counsel and the court on April 13, 2026 and that she submitted the memorandum to the Court’s electronic filing system before midnight on that same day but that receipt was not acknowledged until 12:02 a.m. on April 14, 2026. Regardless of whether the memorandum was timely filed for the Court’s consideration, Mathis attached a forty-five page appendix to her Notice of Intent which
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
1 All statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise indicated. 2 Section 659a states, in relevant part, “Within 10 days of filing the notice, the moving party shall serve upon all other parties and file any brief and accompanying documents, including affidavits in support of the motion. ...These deadlines may, for good cause shown by affidavit or by written stipulation of the parties, be extended by any judge for an addition period not to exceed 10 days.”
set forth her issues with the Statement of Decision and Judgment.
“A motion to vacate under section 663 is a remedy to be used when a trial court draws incorrect conclusions of law or renders an erroneous judgment on the basis of uncontroverted evidence. The motion to vacate under section 663 ... is distinguished from a motion for a new trial, to be used when, e.g., the evidence is insufficient to support the findings or verdict.” (Simac Design, Inc. v. Alciati (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 146, 153; § 663 [must also show the error materially affected the substantial rights of the party entitling that party to a different judgment].)
In the late filed memorandum, Mathis asks that the court vacate the Judgment and Statement of Decision “and set the matter for a new trial.” (Mtn., p. 12, ll. 7-8.) Mathis, however, did not file a notice of intent to move for a new trial under section 659. The Court, therefore, cannot grant that relief and any such request is denied on procedural grounds.
Similarly, the majority of concerns set forth in Mathis’ appendix (pp. 1-41) take issue with the Court’s Statement of Decision. California Rules of Court, rule 3.1590 sets forth the rules for challenging a proposed Statement of Decision, and the Court and the parties followed that process prior to the Court issuing its final Statement of Decision. The Court denies the request to amend the final Statement of Decision and cannot reweigh the evidence to make any such changes via a motion brought under section 663.
Finally, the Court has reviewed the issues raised in the appendix with respect to the Judgment and finds Mathis has failed to make the necessary showing for relief under section 663. The motion to vacate the Judgment is therefore denied.
ORDER
The motion is denied.
The Court grants Mathis’s requests for judicial notice. (Evid. Code, § 452(d).)
Natali’s counsel is reminded that he may not electronically serve Mathis who is self-represented absent affirmative consent. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.251(c)(3)(B); Local Rule 31.06.) In light of Mathis’ reply, electronic service of Natali’s opposition constituted sufficient notice for purposes of this motion.
Mathis is reminded that any future filings should only contain one case caption because the matters have not been consolidated. If Mathis seeks to file the same document in each matter, she should submit separate filings for each case with the individual caption.
2