Ryan v. Rosenfeld

An order denying a motion to vacate judgment is a separately appealable order, even if the issues raised on appeal overlap issues that the appellant could have or did raise on an appeal from the underlying judgment.  An order denying a motion to vacate judgment under CCP 663 is a separately appealable order even if the issues raised on that appeal overlap issues that the appellant could have or did raise on an appeal from the underlying judgment.  Clemmer v. Hartford Insurance Co. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 865 should not be read to hold to the contrary, as a long line of California Supreme Court authority stretching back to Bond v. United Railroads (1911) 159 Cal. 270, 273 has held that orders denying motions to vacate under section 663 are appealable.  The issue was not squarely addressed in Clemmer, which did not cite any authority on the point or purport to overrule prior Supreme Court authority on the point.

California Supreme Court (Cuéllar, J.); June 15, 2017; 2017 WL 2589515

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s