Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)

Citation: Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
Parent Document: Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2025-03-14
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10356658/kaushansky-v-stonecroft-attorneys-apc/ ↗

Full Text

1,766 chars

12
              a.    Standard of review
       “A judgment or order of a lower court is presumed to be
correct on appeal, and all intendments and presumptions are
indulged in favor of its correctness.” (In re Marriage of Arceneaux
(1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133 (Arceneaux).) Specifically, “[u]nder
the doctrine of implied findings, the reviewing court must infer,
following a bench trial, that the trial court impliedly made every
factual finding necessary to support its decision.” (Fladeboe v.
American Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 42, 48
(Fladeboe).) “Sections 632 and 634 [of the Code of Civil
Procedure] . . . set forth the means by which to avoid application
of these inferences in favor of the judgment. When the court
announces its tentative decision, a party may, under section 632,
request the court to issue a statement of decision explaining the
basis of its determination, and shall specify the issues on which
the party is requesting the statement; following such a request,
the party may make proposals relating to the contents of the
statement. Thereafter, under section 634, the party must state
any objection to the statement in order to avoid an implied
finding on appeal in favor of the prevailing party.” (Arceneaux, at
p. 1133, fns. omitted.)
       Code of Civil Procedure section 634 states if omissions or
ambiguities in the statement of decision’s factual findings are
timely brought to the trial court’s attention, “it shall not be
inferred on appeal . . . that the trial court decided in favor of the
prevailing party as to those facts or on that issue.” (Code Civ.
Proc., § 634; see SFPP v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co.
(2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 452, 462 (SFPP); Tusher v. Gabrielsen
(1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 131, 140.)

Other Sections in This Document (56)

Full Text