§ 634.Inference When Issue Not Resolved By Statement of Decision Or Statement Ambiguous

Title 8. Of the Trial and Judgment In Civil Actions · Chapter 5. Trial by the Court · Last amended 1981 · Last verified July 28, 2026

In one sentenceSection 634 bars an appellate court, or a trial court ruling on a new-trial or vacate-judgment motion, from inferring that the trial court decided a controverted issue in the prevailing party's favor whenever a statement of decision leaves that issue unresolved or ambiguous and the omission was raised before judgment or in that later motion.

Full Text of § 634

Text size

When a statement of decision does not resolve a controverted issue, or if the statement is ambiguous and the record shows that the omission or ambiguity was brought to the attention of the trial court either prior to entry of judgment or in conjunction with a motion under Section 657 or 663, it shall not be inferred on appeal or upon a motion under Section 657 or 663 that the trial court decided in favor of the prevailing party as to those facts or on that issue.

Plain-English Summary

A statement of decision that skips an issue, or handles it ambiguously, doesn't get the benefit of the doubt on review — but only if someone flagged the problem at the right time. If the omission or ambiguity was brought to the trial court's attention before judgment was entered, or as part of a motion for new trial under § 657 or to vacate the judgment under § 663, the reviewing court can't infer that the trial court silently ruled in favor of the prevailing party on that issue.

This section rewards attentiveness. A party who catches a gap in the statement of decision and raises it promptly preserves the right to a real answer on that issue; a party who lets it slide risks the ordinary presumption that unstated findings favor the winner.

Frequently Asked Questions

What happens on appeal if the trial court's statement of decision doesn't address an issue?

Normally a reviewing court would presume the trial court decided in the prevailing party's favor, but § 634 blocks that inference if the omission was brought to the trial court's attention before judgment, or through a § 657 or § 663 motion.

How does a party preserve the right to challenge a gap in the statement of decision?

By raising the omission or ambiguity with the trial court before judgment is entered, or in a motion for new trial under § 657 or to vacate the judgment under § 663.

Amendment History

Amended by Stats. 1981, Ch. 900, Sec. 2.

Source & verification. Section text is reproduced verbatim from the Deering's California Codes Annotated / vLex. Enacted by the California Legislature. Last verified July 28, 2026. · Official source

Also known as: ambiguous statement of decision california