Jacobsen v. Faulk
Filed 4/19/06 Jacobsen v. Faulk CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| KENNETH W. JACOBSEN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICHARD LEE FAULK, Defendant and Appellant. | G034918 (Super. Ct. No. 02CC16916) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Kim Garlin Dunning, and Peter J. Polos, Judges. Dismissed.
Law Offices of Ronald E. Faulk for Defendant and Appellant.
David McDonnell for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * *
This case provides a good illustration of what litigants should not do after a court enters and files a judgment without a statement of decision when one was timely requested. Waiting several months to check on the status of your request, missing the clear statutory deadlines to challenge the judgment by an appropriate motion in superior court, and then letting the deadline to appeal the judgment pass without taking action, are the wrong steps to take. Moreover, appealing from a nonappealable order (the denial of your untimely motion for new trial and motion to set aside the judgment) nearly one year after the judgment was entered will result in your appeal being dismissed. Although the law is clear it is reversible error to enter a judgment without findings, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 632, reversal is not automatic.[1] The judgment is not â€
