In Leiserson v. City of San Diego (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 41, in response to the plaintiff's request for a statement of decision, the trial judge prepared an "'Intended Decision'" in which he explained the basis for his decision in favor of the defendants. (Id. at pp. 41, 46.) The plaintiff filed a number of specific objections to the "'Intended Decision,'" and a hearing was commenced on those objections but was not completed before the judge died. (Id. at p. 47.) The defendants moved under section 635 to have judgment entered by the acting presiding judge in conformity with the "'Intended Decision.'" (Leiserson, at p. 47.) In support of their motion, the defendants asserted that during the first part of the hearing on the plaintiff's objections to the decision, the trial judge had indicated "'his decision would remain the same' although he '. . . would entertain argument with respect to changing some of the language in the intended decision.'" (Id. at pp. 47-48.) The plaintiff did not dispute this assertion. (Id. at p. 48, fn. 7.) The acting presiding judge entered judgment as requested. (Id. at p. 48.) On appeal, the appellate court found no error. (Leiserson v. City of San Diego, supra, 184 Cal.App.3d at p. 48.) The court concluded that the "'Intended Decision'" was, in fact, the statement of decision the plaintiff had requested. (Ibid.) And while "the fact that a party may file objections to a proposed statement of decision pursuant to the California Rules of Court . . . necessarily implies that the statement may be modified, perhaps even to the point of changing the result," "there was no indication such modification was contemplated or ever considered" in this case. (Ibid.) Because the "'Intended Decision'" was "in reality a proposed statement of decision" that "provided a complete and adequate basis for appellate review," the court concluded that the "presiding judge was empowered by section 635 to sign and enter the judgment." (Leiserson, at p. 48.)