DISCUSSION

I. Noneconomic Damages

Grandmother contends the trial court failed to award her noneconomic damages because it “did not increase the amount that was allocated to [her] from the tentative decision to the final statement of decision despite adding a category of damages to the award.” We disagree. “[A] trial court retains inherent authority to change its decision, its findings of fact, or its conclusions of law at any time before entry of judgment and then the judgment supersedes any memorandum or tentative decision or any oral comments from the bench.” (Shaw v. County of Santa Cruz (2008) 170 Cal.App.4th 229, 268.) We therefore “disregard the trial court’s tentative ruling . . . and consider only the trial court’s final order on the motion.” (Silverado Modjeska Recreation & Park Dist. v. County of Orange (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 282, 300-301.) Here, the trial court awarded “$100,000 to [grandmother] for her total economic and noneconomic damages” in the judgment. The judgment superseded the tentative decision. Grandmother invites us to compare the judgment and the tentative decision

3 “side by side,” claiming the comparison demonstrates the judgment in fact awarded her $0 in noneconomic damages. We decline the invitation, because “[a] tentative decision cannot be relied on to impeach the judgment on appeal.” (FLIR Systems, Inc. v. Parrish (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1284; accord, In re Marriage of Ditto (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 643, 647 [a tentative decision “ ‘cannot be resorted to for the purpose of impeaching or gainsaying the findings and judgment’ ”].) Grandmother also contends the tentative decision must be given more weight because it would have become the final judgment but for her request for a statement of decision. But this is the nature of a tentative decision. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1590(c)(1) [the trial court in its tentative decision may state that it is the court’s proposed statement of decision, subject to a party’s objection].) Grandmother fails to cite any legal authority to support her proposition that a tentative decision carries more weight when it is closer to becoming the final judgment. Grandmother also contends the trial court expressed doubt over her entitlement to noneconomic damages. But under ordinary appellate review, we are concerned with the correctness of the trial court’s decision and judgment, not its reasons. (Estate of Kampen (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 971, 1000.) Having concluded the trial court awarded grandmother noneconomic damages, we need not address her claim that the trial court’s favoritism towards grandchild contributed to its failure to award noneconomic damages to grandmother.

II. Frivolous Appeal

Although we have concluded that grandmother’s appeal lacks merit, it is not frivolous as grandchild asserts. “[A]n appeal should be held to be frivolous only when it is prosecuted for an improper motive — to harass the respondent or delay the effect of an adverse judgment — or when it indisputably has no merit — when any reasonable attorney would agree that the appeal is totally and completely without merit.” (In re Marriage of Flaherty

4 (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637, 650.) We must interpret this definition “to avoid a serious chilling effect on the assertion of litigants’ rights on appeal.” (Ibid.) For that reason, “[a]n appeal that is simply without merit is not by definition frivolous and should not incur sanctions.” (Ibid.; accord, In re Marriage of Gong & Kwong (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 510, 518.) Grandchild analogizes this case to Gong & Kwong, where the court found an appeal frivolous because it went “far beyond asserting an unmeritorious claim.” (Gong & Kwong, supra, 163 Cal.App.4th at p. 518.) But grandchild does not allege the instant appeal is anything other than meritless. Although she claims that the appeal leaves her struggling for housing due to the pause in her monthly disbursements, she does not contend the pause is an intended consequence of the appeal. We decline to find this appeal frivolous merely because it lacks merit.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Grandchild shall recover her costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1), (2).)

/s/

MESIWALA, J.

We concur:

/s/ KRAUSE, Acting P. J.

/s/

WISEMAN, J.*

* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

5