ABTL Report - Fall 2026 Edition - Flipbook - Page 13
ABTL - Los Angeles
Fall 2026
for the court to appreciate any valid grounds for objection you
raise. Also, though it may be unlikely the trial court will change
its decision, your real audience is the Court of Appeal.
STATEMENTS OF DECISION: NEW RULES ARE COMING;
LEARN THEM NOW...continued from Page 12
issues” is not as broad as you might think. Yes, the court needs
to “explain[ ] the factual and legal basis for its decision as to
each of the principal controverted issues.” (New § 632, subd.
(a).) But this could amount to as little as a single, high-level
昀椀nding and a citation to a single case or statute.
The trial court may, but need not, set a hearing on objections.
The statement of decision becomes 昀椀nal when the court rules
on the objections, or the later of 30 days after the time to object
has expired or 30 days after any hearing on the objections. (New
§ 632, subd. (e)(4)–(5).)
And the court needs to address only the principal controverted
issues, not every issue in dispute. The principal issues are the
ultimate questions—”Did the driver breach a duty of care by
running the yellow light?”—rather than the detail questions—
”How long had the light been yellow when the driver entered
the intersection?” (See In re Marriage of Williamson (2014) 226
Cal.App.4th 1303, 1318 [“[t]he court is required only to state
the ultimate rather than evidentiary facts”; the decision need
only “‘state the grounds upon which the judgment rests, without
necessarily specifying the particular evidence’”].)
Different: Proposed and 昀椀nal judgment.
Under New section 632, “before or after the statement of
decision is 昀椀nal,” the court may prepare and serve a proposed
judgment or order a party to do so. (New § 632, subd. (f)(1).)
Objections to the proposed judgment are due within 10 days of
service. (New § 632, subd. (f)(2).)
This timeline runs into the hard requirement, under the new
section 664, for the clerk to enter judgment within 30 days after
the statement of decision is 昀椀nal. (New § 664, subd. (b).) Or,
absent a statement of decision, the clerk must enter judgment
within 30 days “after the 昀椀ling of the court’s decision.” (Ibid.)
Different: No more “tentative decision.”
Under New section 632, if none of the parties requests a
statement of decision before the matter is submitted, “the court
may announce its ruling on all relief sought without a statement
of decision”—orally or in writing, and in brief or at length.
(New § 632, subd. (c).)
The new statutes do not detail the court’s procedure for
signing and 昀椀ling the 昀椀nal judgment. (Cf. Cal. Rules of Court,
rule 3.1590(l).) We anticipate the new rules of court will address
these issues.
The old statute provided that following a trial that lasted more
than a day, courts would “announce[] a tentative decision.” (Old
§ 632, subd. (a).) Like great musicians playing a jazz standard,
each judge interpreted this provision differently. The best part
of the new statute is to do away with “tentative decisions” as a
formalized step on the way to statements of decision.
Conclusion: Why these rules matter.
The fate of a judgment following a court trial usually depends
on the statement of decision. What the trial court says, and
doesn’t say, about its decision and reasoning could make the
judgment appeal-proof—or could expose errors and invite
reversal. Learn the new rules; review them before every “trial
of a question of fact by the court.” The day will come when
they save your client’s case.
Different: Objections and 昀椀nality.
Under New section 632, the court serves “the statement of
decision,” and this triggers a 10-day deadline to object. (New
§ 632, subd. (e)(1), italics added.) (There is no longer any
“proposed” statement of decision or other half-measure, and this
10-day deadline is shorter than the current 15-day deadline.) If
there are no objections, the statement of decision becomes 昀椀nal
upon expiration of the time to object.
Hon. John L. Segal is an Associate Justice, Second Appellate
District, Division Seven
Stefan C. Love is a Partner at Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland
LLP
The grounds to object to the statement of decision remain as
before. A party may object that the statement of decision fails
to address a “principal controverted issue” (see above), that it
is contradictory, or that it commits a genuine error of fact or
law. As before, you should not use objections to reargue an
issue, explain why the court is wrong, criticize the judge or your
opponent, or list secondary issues the court should have decided.
Objecting on these improper grounds will only make it harder
13
