Furton
Furton v. Herr
Opinion
lead Opinion
Sims, J.
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.
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.
BACKGROUND
We glean the following background facts from the limited record on appeal.
*1466 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.