In Re Marriage of Carlsson

Bad Law
163 Cal. App. 4th 281·77 Cal. Rptr. 3d 305·8 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6318
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 8, 2008C053515California4,205 words

Opinion

Opinion

Butz, J.

— “It is a cardinal principle of our jurisprudence that a party should not be bound or concluded by a judgment unless he has had his day in court. This means that a party must be duly cited to appear and afforded an opportunity to be heard and to offer evidence at such hearing in support of his contentions. [¶] His right to a hearing does not depend upon the will, caprice or discretion of the trial judge who is to make a decision upon the issues. [¶] An order or judgment without such an opportunity is lacking in all the attributes of a judicial determination. [Citations.] [¶] Refusal to permit counsel ... to present evidence and make a reasonable argument in support of his client’s position [i]s not a mere error in procedure. It amountfs] to a deprival of a substantial statutory right ...” (Spector v. Superior Court (1961) 55 Cal.2d 839, 843-844 [ 13 Cal.Rptr. 189 , 361 P.2d 909 ] (Spector).)

“Only judge when you have heard all.” — Greek proverb.

This case invites application of the above principles to an unusual and perhaps unprecedented fact situation: In a routine dissolution case, the family law judge suddenly declared an end to the trial before the husband had…

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.