In Re the Marriage of Ananeh-Firempong
1990 Cal. App. LEXIS 309, 219 Cal. App. 3d 272, 268 Cal. Rptr. 83 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 632, a timely request for a statement of decision may be made orally on the record; a written request is not required.
Facts:
- Husband and Wife were married on June 7, 1978, and separated on June 13, 1984.
- During the marriage, a 1979 Mercedes Benz was acquired; Husband initially leased it and later purchased it.
- Husband gave conflicting testimony regarding the car's purchase date, stating in a 1984 deposition that he bought it in 1983, but testifying at trial that he bought it in November 1984.
- Husband, a medical doctor, owned a medical practice which was a primary community asset to be valued.
- Expert accountants for each party provided widely divergent valuations for the medical practice: Wife's expert valued it at approximately $282,000, while Husband's expert valued it at $140,000.
- During the dissolution proceedings, Wife was unemployed and attending college, incurring over $20,000 in attorney's fees and nearly $10,000 in accountant's fees.
Procedural Posture:
- Following a judgment of dissolution between Husband and Wife, a trial on reserved issues was held in California Superior Court, the court of first instance.
- Just before the trial court rendered its tentative decision, Husband's counsel orally requested a statement of decision explaining the court's calculations if it adopted one expert's valuation of the medical practice over the other.
- The trial court advised counsel that any such request must be made in writing.
- The trial court entered a final judgment on the reserved issues without issuing the requested statement of decision.
- Husband, as appellant, filed a timely notice of appeal to the California Court of Appeal, challenging several aspects of the judgment, including the failure to issue a statement of decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does California Code of Civil Procedure § 632 require a request for a statement of decision to be made in writing, or is a timely oral request made on the record legally sufficient?
Opinions:
Majority - Woods, J.
No, California Code of Civil Procedure § 632 does not require a request for a statement of decision to be in writing; a timely oral request is sufficient. The trial court's failure to issue a statement of decision explaining its valuation of Husband's medical practice constitutes reversible error. The plain language of § 632 refers to a 'request,' not a 'written request.' This contrasts with former court rules that explicitly required a request to be 'served and filed,' which implied a writing. The court found persuasive the case of In re Marriage of Reilley, which implicitly approved an oral request, and declined to follow dicta in Martinez v. County of Tulare that suggested a request must be written. Husband's oral request, made on the record just prior to the tentative decision, was sufficiently clear and timely under the circumstances to trigger the court's duty to issue a statement of decision on the principal controverted issue of the medical practice's valuation. However, the trial court's other findings regarding the Mercedes and the fee awards were affirmed, as they were supported by substantial evidence and Husband had waived his right to challenge the court's reasoning by failing to request a statement of decision on those specific issues.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies a significant point of California civil procedure by confirming the validity of oral, on-the-record requests for statements of decision. It establishes that the form of the request is secondary to its timeliness and clarity, preventing trial courts from using procedural technicalities to avoid explaining their rulings. The case also underscores the critical role of the statement of decision in creating an adequate appellate record; a trial court's failure to provide one on a principal controverted issue is reversible error. For practitioners, this ruling provides flexibility in making such requests while also highlighting the harsh consequence of waiver for failing to request a statement on issues one may later wish to appeal.
