In Re Marriage of Herr
Opinion
Opinion
Although a trial court has inherent authority to correct an erroneous ruling or order on its own motion, it has no inherent authority to order a new trial. ( Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1107-1109 [ 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 249 , 112 P.3d 636 ]; Fomco, Inc. v. Joe Maggio, Inc. (1961) 55 Cal.2d 162 [ 10 Cal.Rptr. 462 , 358 P.2d 918 ].) Here, although the trial court announced it was granting reconsideration on its own motion of a support order, it in fact ordered a full "hearing on reconsideration" and directed the parties both to submit new declarations and to be prepared at the hearing to present additional evidence.
(1) Such a reexamination of factual issues does not fall under the rubric of "reconsideration." It is a new trial. And, because the trial court here had no authority to order a new trial, we shall reverse its order purporting to grant reconsideration.
We glean the following background facts from the limited record on appeal.
The parties were married in or about 1990, and have three children. In August 2006, they entered into a written stipulation that Mark [1] would pay child and spousal support to Sandra.