Swift

Swift v. Daniels

Good Law
103 Cal. App. 3d 263·162 Cal. Rptr. 863·1980 Cal. App. LEXIS 1574
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 10, 1980Civ. 55500California588 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kaus, J.

Plaintiff and cross-defendant Marvin Swift appeals from a judgment quieting title to certain real property in defendant and cross-complainant Steven Daniels.

We need not engage in any substantive discussion of the underlying facts giving rise to this lawsuit. Suffice it to say that at the conclusion of trial, presided over by Judge Guirado, the court made its intended decision to enter judgment in Daniels’ favor. Thereafter, however, Judge Guirado became incapacitated, and, as a result, Judge Bigger-staff signed the formal findings of fact and conclusions of law, purportedly in conformity with Judge Guirado’s statement of intended decision.

Judge Biggerstaffs signature appears above a stamped indication that he was acting pursuant to section 635 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as follows: “In all cases where findings of fact and conclusions of law are not required or have been waived and the decision of the court has been entered in its minutes, and when the judge who heard or tried the case is unavailable, the formal judgment or order conforming to the minutes may be signed by the presiding judge of the court.”

Section 635 was, however, inapplicable for…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.