The motion by defendant/cross-complainant/cross- defendant Kabir’s Investment Corp. to set aside and vacate the judgment is granted. (CCP 663; CCP 473(d).) Moving party timely filed a proper request for statement of decision. (CCP 632; CRC 3.1590(d).) Thus, the court was required to issue a statement of decision “explaining the factual and legal basis for its decision as to each of the principal controverted issues at trial upon the request of any party appearing at the trial.” (CCP 632.) However, judgment here was entered before the statement of decision was rendered. “A judgment entered without findings where findings are required is a nullity …” (In re Marriage of Davis (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 71, 77, citing Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Northwestern Mut. Ins. Co. (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 204, 207.) As the judgment here was entered before findings were made, it is void. A void judgment may be set aside at any time. (CCP 473(d); Nagel v. P & M Distributors, Inc. (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 176, 180 [jud
Hearing Date
December 01, 2017
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
The motion by defendant/cross-complainant/cross- defendant Kabir’s Investment Corp. to set aside and vacate the judgment is granted. (CCP 663; CCP 473(d).) Moving party timely filed a proper request for statement of decision. (CCP 632; CRC 3.1590(d).) Thus, the court was required to issue a statement of decision “explaining the factual and legal basis for its decision as to each of the principal controverted issues at trial upon the request of any party appearing at the trial.” (CCP 632.) However, judgment here was entered before the statement of decision was rendered. “A judgment entered without findings where findings are required is a nullity …” (In re Marriage of Davis (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 71, 77, citing Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Northwestern Mut. Ins. Co. (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 204, 207.) As the judgment here was entered before findings were made, it is void. A void judgment may be set aside at any time. (CCP 473(d); Nagel v. P & M Distributors, Inc. (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 176, 180 [jud