Phelan v. Superior Court

In Phelan v. Superior Court (1950) 35 Cal.2d 363, plaintiff obtained a $ 2,000 jury verdict in a personal injury action. In its order denying defendant's motion for new trial, the trial court, without explanation, reduced the judgment to $ 1,250. After the time for appeal expired, plaintiff sought a writ of mandate to compel the trial court to strike the portion of the order reducing the amount of the judgment, on the grounds it was void on its face and beyond the court's jurisdiction. (Phelan, supra, 35 Cal.2d at pp. 365-366.) The Supreme Court denied the writ. It noted that an order denying a motion for new trial that also modifies a prior judgment is proper if the parties consent to the order, and nothing in the record demonstrated that plaintiff did not consent to the reduction of the judgment. (Phelan, supra, 35 Cal.2d at p. 373.) Because the consent necessary to permit modification of the judgment could therefore be presumed, and nothing on the record established the order's invalidity, Phelan held the modification order was not void. (Id. at p. 375.) The Phelan court found "closely analogous to the problem presented here are cases where the propriety of a judgment depends on the validity of an order vacating a prior judgment. In this situation the courts have applied the collateral attack rule and have held that it will be presumed that there was sufficient proof of facts and circumstances which justified the trial court in setting aside the first judgment. . . . Some of the cases dealing with this question have specifically held that consent to vacation of a prior judgment is one of the facts that will be presumed in support of the validity of the latest judgment. " (Phelan, supra, 35 Cal.2d at p. 375.)