ABTL Report - Fall 2026 Edition - Flipbook - Page 12
ABTL - Los Angeles
Fall 2026
STATEMENTS OF DECISION: NEW RULES ARE COMING;
LEARN THEM NOW...continued from Page 1
On the other hand, a statement of decision may be available
in connection with certain arbitration rulings, if appealable and
involving a factual determination (see Code Civ. Proc., § 1291);
certain proceedings identi昀椀ed by statute (see, e.g., Fam. Code,
§ 2127; Prob. Code, § 1962); and in some other contexts (see,
e.g., Gruendl v. Oewel Partnership, Inc. (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th
654, 659-662 [alter ego 昀椀nding under Code of Civil Procedure
section 187]). And the trial court always has discretion to issue a
statement of decision even if not required (see In re Marriage of
Feldman (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1470, 1497), and even if not
requested (New § 632, subd. (c)).
“‘implied 昀椀ndings’” (Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC
(2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 788, 799);
2. “‘When the record clearly demonstrates what the
trial court did,’” including in a statement of decision, the Court of
Appeal “‘will not presume it did something different’” (Paterno
v. State of California (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 998, 1015).
The appellate court, in other words, presumes the trial court
resolved any given issue in the prevailing party’s favor, in any
way that is consistent with the statement of decision.
Different: You must request a statement of decision before the
matter is submitted.
For example, suppose the plaintiff prevails at trial having
argued that the defendant was liable on two distinct theories, A
and B. And suppose on appeal, the defendant argues, correctly,
that binding case law negates theory B.
If you remember only one thing about the new rules, remember
this: You must always request a statement of decision “prior to
the submission of the matter for decision.” (New § 632, subd.
(a), italics added.)
If the statement of decision did not address the theories of
liability separately, the Court of Appeal will af昀椀rm based on
theory A. But if the trial court issued a statement of decision
adopting theory B as the basis for liability, the Court of Appeal
will reverse. (See Cortina v. North American Title Co. (2026)
120 Cal.App.5th 1030, 1127-1130 [no implied 昀椀ndings in favor
of judgment where statement of decision showed court adopted
party’s erroneous legal standards].)
If a court reporter is present, the request may be oral. However,
even when not required, it is always best to 昀椀le a written request.
A written request forces you to think more carefully about the
scope of the issues and makes it easier to challenge the trial
court’s ruling in objections and posttrial motions or on appeal.
Old section 632 allowed you to make the request within 10
days of the court’s “tentative decision,” except in short-cause
matters. (See Old § 632, subd. (a).) This allowed you to decide
whether to request a statement of decision based on the tentative
decision. As of January 1, you must forget all that.
Same: A statement of decision is available “upon the trial of a
question of fact by the court.”
New section 632, like the old version, provides that a statement
of decision is available “upon the trial of a question of fact by
the court.” (New § 632, subd. (a).) The word “trial” is key. It
will remain the case that not every decision of a question of fact
entitles the parties to a statement of decision.
Though the timing will be different, what happens after a
party requests a statement of decision will stay the same. If a
party timely requests a statement of decision, the court may
order a party or parties to prepare a draft or the court may draft
the statement. (New § 632, subd. (d).) As under the current
rules, a party should welcome the chance to draft the statement
of decision—and should be wary of its opponent’s draft—as the
statement of decision can be a devastating weapon on appeal.
“The requirement of a written statement of decision
generally does not apply to an order on a motion, even if the
motion involves an evidentiary hearing and even if the order is
appealable.” (Lien v. Lucky United Properties Investment, Inc.
(2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 620, 623–624.) For example, statements
of decision are not required in connection with rulings on
motions for preliminary injunctions (Santa Clara Valley Water
Dist. v. Eisenberg (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 714, 742), or on
special motions to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section
435.16 (Lien, at p. 625; cf., DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Co.
v. Superior Court (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 562, 564 [statement of
decision required if determination on the second step of the antiSLAPP analysis is “based on evidence” and granting motion
will “result[] in a judgment striking the complaint”]).
Same: The statement of decision must address “each of the
principal controverted issues.”
Under the new section 632, as under the old, the statement of
decision must address “each of the principal controverted issues
at trial.” (New § 632, subd. (a).) Your request for a statement of
decision must specify the issues you want the court to decide.
(Ibid.)
The requirement to address “each of the principal controverted
Continued on Page 13
12
