Judicial error

Judicial error is committed when the court intended the order or judgment it made, even though it was based on an error of law.  Since a judicial error may be committed by a judge and a clerical error may (or may not be) committed by a clerk, the type of error may be difficult to determine.  In Rochin v. Pat Johnson Manufacturing Co. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4^th 1228, the court described the differences between the two types of errors:

  “The difference between judicial and clerical error rests not upon the party committing the error, but rather on whether it was the deliberate result of judicial reasoning and determination.  The distinction between clerical error and judicial error is whether the error was made in rendering the judgment, or in recording the judgment rendered.” (Id. at p. 1238.)

         The type of error will determine the remedy.  If a simple clerical error was committed, then a party can make a motion before the same tribunal to correct the error.  But the court cannot amend a judgment to modify or materially affect the parties’ rights under this inherent power.  (Aspen Internat. Capital Corp. v. Marsch (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1199, 1204 [“The difference between judicial and clerical error rests not upon the party committing the error, but rather on whether ‘it was the deliberate result of judicial reasoning and determination'”].) 

If such an error occurs, and the judgment has been entered, the trial court cannot correct the error and the parties must look to the appellate courts to do so.  “Unless the challenged portion of the judgment was entered inadvertently, it cannot be changed post judgment under the guise of correction of clerical error.  (Tokio Marine & Fire Ins. Corp. v. Western Pacific Roofing Corp. (1999) 75 Cal. App.4^th 110, 117.)  Thus, if the court “construed the evidence before it, or misapplied the law applicable to the facts disclosed by the evidence, or was even misled by counsel,” the error is not a clerical one and must be corrected on by a post-judgment motion or on appeal.

Comments

[Krista Enn]

Thank you for this information. It clarifies a confusing point. Is it considered "error" if the judge had the correct information, the information clearly supported a particular ruling, and the judge, in defiance to the laws, deliberately ruled in opposition to it?

[Donna Bader]

Yes, it would be considered error. The Court of Appeal generally will not look at the reasons for an error. It could be the judge did not understand or know the law, or even worse, didn't like the parties and wanted to rule against them. (Yes,it does happen.) Motivation is usually not on the record. Mistakes are made all the time, but legal error, in particular, occurs when the judge does not follow the law. Sometimes the judge will reach the correct result, but for the wrong reasons, and the Court of Appeal will not be bound by the trial court's reasoning.