Equity: Trial Judge Deciding In Earlier Statement Of Decision There Was A Factual Basis For Attorney’s Fees Improperly Revisited Factual Determination Through Motion To Vacate Judgment Under CCP § 663a

This Was Tantamount To Making Improper Additional Findings Of Fact To Earlier Decision.

            In a tutorial on the proper use of a motion to vacate judgment under CCP § 663a, Master Plumbing and Sewer, Inc. v. Fountaine West Condominium Owners Assn., Case No. A143711 (1^st Dist., Div. 2 May 3, 2018) (unpublished) shows what can and cannot be done.  In this case, the trial judge issued a detailed Statement of Decision indicating there was a factual basis for a fee award to the prevailing party based upon clauses in some invoices.  However, in response to an opposition crafted through the vehicle of a motion to vacate judgment later, the trial judge changed his mind and excised the attorney’s fees entitlement ruling.  The 1/2 DCA found that this was reversal error, reinstating the original judgment (complete with the fee entitlement decision).  The reason?  A section 663a motion does not allow a trial judge to change any finding of fact.  A trial judge can find that an incorrect legal conclusion or erroneous judgment was reached, but can only do so based on the facts already found to exist.  The lower court effectively made additional findings of fact, something which cannot be done under section 663a.