Unraveling the Statement of Decision Process and Mandatory Findings in Family Law Cases

• Publication year: 2024
• Citation: Vol. 46 No. 1
• Author: Written by Michelene Insalaco

UNRAVELING THE STATEMENT OF DECISION PROCESS AND MANDATORY FINDINGS IN FAMILY LAW CASES

Written by Michelene Insalaco^*

Michelene Insalaco, CSFL, CSAL¹

What is a "Statement of Decision" and how does it impact a family law appeal? When do you want, and not want, a Statement of Decision? What should you seek to have included in a Statement of Decision? This article will address these questions as well as other strategic and practical points about the Statement of Decision process, along with mandatory findings, to ensure that, as a family law trial attorney, you do what is needed, before and after a trial, to protect your client's appellate rights.

WHAT IS A STATEMENT OF DECISION?

A Statement of Decision is a pleading that exists only in the realm of bench trials, as opposed to jury trials. In it, the trial court lays out the "factual and legal basis for its decision as to each of the principal controverted issues at trial."² A key reason for the Statement of Decision process is to permit the parties to bring obvious errors to the trial court's attention, so that they may be corrected, and an appeal avoided. The Statement of Decision also permits the appellate court to review the actual reasoning of the trial court, as opposed to implying findings.³

There is substantial overlap in family law between a Statement of Decision and mandatory findings, as discussed later in this article.

HOW DOES THE STATEMENT OF DECISION IMPACT AN APPEAL, AND WHEN SHOULD YOU REQUEST ONE?

If you timely request a Statement of Decision and the trial court fails to issue it, or fails to correct omissions or ambiguities in it, this can be grounds for reversal on appeal (except for harmless error, discussed below).⁴ Because of this, a Statement of Decision is typically more beneficial to the party who lost in the trial court, rather than the prevailing party.

Further, when a party properly navigates the Statement of Decision process, the appellate doctrine of implied findings will (or should) not apply in any subsequent appeal, making reversal more possible. As background, the policy of our state is to discourage appeals, to enhance judicial economy and expedite the finality of judgments.⁵ Thus, numerous rules and policies create hurdles to obtaining reversal on appeal. A key such rule is that decisions which turn on factual findings will not be reversed if the trial court

[Page 20]

could have made needed findings, based on evidence in the record.⁶ Such findings will be implied to support affirming a judgment, under the doctrine of implied findings. All that is needed is "substantial evidence" in the record, which can essentially be any credible evidence, even the testimony of just one interested party.⁷

Thus, when parties waive a Statement of Decision (by express consent or failure to timely or properly request it) the appellate court reviews the appealed judgment or order under the doctrine of implied findings and presumes that the trial court made all factual findings necessary to support the judgment for which there is substantial evidence.⁸ Appellate review is limited to searching the record for evidence that could support the lower court's "implied findings." A properly requested Statement of Decision avoids application of this doctrine, and the appellate court reviews the trial court's actual reasoning.

A good example of how obtaining the reasoning of the trial court is more likely to lead to reversible error is found in the case In re Marriage of Iverson.⁹ This case involved a trial on the validity of premarital agreement, where the parties had lived together before marriage. The husband had testified he had no desire to marry and wife was the one who initiated the marriage, and he would not have married her but for the premarital agreement. Wife testified that husband pressed for the marriage and she didn't even recall signing the agreement much less having it explained to her. Had the trial judge simply issued an order finding that the agreement was valid on appeal, the appellate court would have used husband's testimony to sustain the decision, under the doctrine of implied findings. However, the trial judge made an oral statement of decision. He opined that the "only thing going for the wife was her looks" and he could not believe wife's story that husband had initiated the marriage because, "in heaven's name, do you buy the cow when you get the milk free, as we used to say."¹⁰ The appellate court of course reversed, holding that "[t]he oral statement of decision ... is so replete with gender bias that we are forced to conclude [that wife could not have received a fair trial.]"¹¹

SOD process fleshes out trial court's analysis so that it can be reviewed for correctness.


Note that a statement of decision is less impactful when there are no factual issues presented, and the appeal involves only pure questions of law. Such legal issues, such as the proper interpretation of an agreement or statute, are subject to de novo review on appeal, regardless of the trial court's reasoning. This is because appellate justices are deemed to be in better position to research and analyze legal questions, having less busy calendars and more time for scholarly inquiries. Trial courts on the other hand are in a better position to adjudge factual disputes, being more familiar with the parties and having personally witnessed their testimony and demeanor.¹²

It is extremely difficult to obtain reversal when the appellate court is operating under the doctrine of implied findings. There is nearly always some evidence in the record to support needed factual findings. Hence, the prevailing party does not benefit from a Statement of Decision, while the losing party does.

For these reasons, if you are the prevailing party, you should generally not seek a Statement of Decision, while you should do so if you are the losing party.

In family law, this is a complex analysis, given that trials usually involve a myriad of issues, and each party may prevail as to some and fail as to others. Ultimately, if your client loses on a material issue that involves factual findings, it is usually best to request a Statement of Decision to preserve appellate rights. Like many questions in the law, it is ultimately a balancing test.

A final point is that, at times, as discussed below, you will be required to request a Statement of Decision prior to the trial court announcing its decision or tentative decision. In such cases, a trial attorney must rely on instincts and weigh the potential pros and cons, and again it is often safer to request a Statement of Decision than to waive it.

MECHANICS OF THE STATEMENT OF DECISION PROCESS-RULE 3.1590

Preserving appellate rights through the Statement of Decision is a two-step process. A party must first timely request the Statement of Decision, and then timely make needed objections. Rule 3.1590 of the California Rules of Court sets out all of the required steps and timelines. All of the deadlines below may be modified by agreement or court order.¹³

Tentative Decision. The first step of the process is that, following a bench trial, the trial court is required to announce a tentative decision, either orally or in

[Page 21]

writing.¹⁴ This tentative ruling is expressly not binding.¹⁵Instead, the trial court is permitted and encouraged to change the tentative, if the objections process reveals errors.¹⁶ The rule provides that the tentative may also:

1. State that it is the court's proposed statement of decision, subject to the parties' objections;
2. Indicate that the court will prepare a statement of decision;
3. Order a party to prepare a statement of decision; or
4. Direct that the tentative decision will become the statement of decision unless, within ten days after announcement or service of the tentative decision, a party specifies those principal controverted issues as to which the party is requesting a statement of decision or makes proposals not included in the tentative decision. ¹⁷

Request for Statement of Decision. After issuance of the tentative, the parties have ten days to formally request a Statement of Decision, unless the trial court uses option (2) or (3) above (which is likely to be the case when a party asked for a Statement of Decision prior to the matter being submitted). In the request the party is required to specify the "principal controverted issues" that the judge is asked to address. The request should focus on "ultimate facts" which are essential to the judgment. Avoid the mistake made in Parris J. v. Christopher U., where the appellant argued that the trial court erred by denying his requests for a statement of decision.¹⁸ The appellate court held that the request was improper, because it asked the trial court "to respond to 66 separate questions, many of which contain additional follow-up questions, relating to a sprawling number of issues and topics."¹⁹ Accordingly, the court held that the request "inappropriately sought an inquisition."²⁰

After one party requests a Statement of Decision, the other party may make proposals as to the content within ten days thereafter.²¹

Importantly, when a trial is completed within one day or in less than eight hours over more than a day, a request for a Statement of Decision must be made before the matter is submitted. The trial court then has the option to make the statement orally on the record.²²

Proposed Statement of Decision. Once the Statement of Decision process begins, a proposed Statement of Decision is due within thirty days of announcement of tentative.²³ Either the trial court will prepare this, or instruct the prevailing party to do so. If you are the prevailing party and instructed to draft the Statement of Decision, this is a key opportunity to protect your client from reversal on appeal. Tips are:

• Address all key controverted issues.
• Be clear and avoid ambiguity.
• Don't get into the weeds on minor issues / sub-issues.
• The appellate justices often read the Statement of Decision as a first step of an...