Raines v. Damon

California Court of Appeal Jan 26, 1949 No. Civ. 3856Published

Before: Mussell

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court acted within its discretion to correct a judgment via a nunc pro tunc order when the original judgment erroneously included determinations regarding property title that were not at issue in the forcible entry and detainer action.

Issues

Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to amend a judgment to correct errors involving property title that were not at issue in the underlying action.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting relief under section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“if the first judgment herein was entered through the inadvertence or improvidence of the trial court, it had the power, independent of statute, to correct the mistake by amending or setting aside the judgment.”

“The right to possession alone was involved in the summary proceeding and the title could not be therein litigated.”

“We find sufficient substantive evidence in the record to support the order and judgment of the court and that there was no abuse of discretion shown.”

MUSSELL, J.

Defendant appeals from an order correcting a judgment and from the judgment

nunc pro tunc

entered thereon.

This is an action for forcible entry and detainer. The trial court, in the judgment, erroneously decreed that plaintiff and defendant were the owners as tenants in common in the real property described in the complaint therein. A motion was made to vacate, set aside or correct the judgment on the grounds of mistake, inadvertence and excusable neglect of the attorney for plaintiff and that the judgment was void, contained clerical errors and was signed and filed through inadvertence of the court. After a hearing on the motion, a

nunc pro tunc

judgment was filed reciting the errors and eliminating that portion relating to the tenancy and ownership of the property.

There were three actions filed. The first,

Damon

Baines,

No. 45658, was an action to quiet title in which Damon sought to impress a trust in his favor as to a one-half interest in the property in Orange County, known as the La Paz Apartments. The second,

Raines

Damon,

No. 46575, was an action to compel defendant to account for rentals alleged to have been collected by him from the same property; and the third was

Raines

Damon,

No; 47059, for forcible entry and detainer. The actions were by stipulation consolidated for trial and defendant Damon prevailed in all three. A new trial was granted in the quiet title suit. After the time for appeal had passed, but within six months after the judgment, this motion was filed in action No. 47059.

It appears from the affidavit of Roland Thompson that he was associated with Powell & Banyard at the time of the trial

[814]

Raines v. Damon

AI Brief

MUSSELL, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief