Opinion
B288569
02-03-2020
THE HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY, Cross-complainant and Appellant, v. S.H.E. ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC. et al., Cross-defendants and Respondents.
Robins Kaplan, David C. Veis and Glenn A. Danas for Cross-complainant and Appellant. Law Offices of Leon Small and Leon Small; Leichter Leichter-Maroko and Ariel Leichter-Maroko for Cross-defendants and Respondents.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LC102030) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Huey P. Cotton, Judge. Affirmed. Robins Kaplan, David C. Veis and Glenn A. Danas for Cross-complainant and Appellant. Law Offices of Leon Small and Leon Small; Leichter Leichter-Maroko and Ariel Leichter-Maroko for Cross-defendants and Respondents.
____________________
INTRODUCTION
Hanover Insurance Company argues the trial court erred by refusing to amend a judgment, entered after Hanover partially prevailed on a cross-complaint, to include David Sheetrit and Ilana Sheetrit (hereinafter the Sheetrits) as judgment debtors liable to Hanover, and by refusing to award Hanover all requested attorneys' fees. We affirm.
S.H.E. Engineering & Construction Group, Inc. (hereinafter SHE) is a general contractor, and the Sheetrits are its principals. Hanover acted as surety for SHE's projects, and both SHE and the Sheetrits signed an indemnity agreement with Hanover.
Hanover, SHE, and several subcontractors were involved in disputes, some of which resulted in this litigation. Three cross-complaints went to trial: (1) subcontractor Zion Cohen cross-complained against SHE and Hanover for breach of contract, indemnity, and negligence; (2) SHE cross-complained against Cohen for substandard work and indemnity; and (3) Hanover cross-complained against SHE and the Sheetrits for indemnity (both for amounts Hanover paid on behalf of SHE, and Hanover's attorneys' fees and costs to date) and against Cohen, alleging Cohen was SHE's joint venture partner, and therefore also liable to Hanover.
After a court trial and supplemental briefing, the court entered judgment on September 20, 2017: (1) for Cohen and against SHE and Hanover on Cohen's cross-complaint; (2) against SHE on its cross-complaint; and (3) for Hanover and against SHE for: (a) the payments Hanover made as SHE's surety; (b) any amount Hanover paid to Cohen in the future due to Cohen's prevailing on his cross-complaint; and (c) Hanover's attorneys' fees, except those incurred defending against Cohen's cross-complaint. The court did not find the Sheetrits individually liable to Hanover. Cohen served notice of entry of judgment on October 2, 2017.
On October 5, 2017, Hanover moved, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 663, to "amend the judgment" (1) to "render and adjudge" the Sheetrits jointly and severally liable to Hanover; and (2) to award Hanover all its attorneys' fees. By the time the motion was heard on December 15, 2017, however, the court had lost jurisdiction to consider it.
All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.
On January 3, 2018, Hanover filed a motion, pursuant to section 473, subdivision (d) (hereinafter Section 473(d)), to correct a clerical error in the judgment. The requested relief was identical to that requested in Hanover's section 663 motion: to amend the judgment to (1) hold the Sheetrits individually liable to Hanover and (2) award Hanover all its attorneys' fees. The court denied this motion on February 7, 2018, finding the error complained of was judicial, not clerical, and thus uncorrectable under Section 473(d). On Hanover's motion for attorneys' fees, the court awarded Hanover all incurred fees with the exception of those incurred in defending against Cohen's cross-complaint.
On March 5, 2018, Hanover appealed: (1) the September 20, 2017, judgment; (2) the December 15, 2017 order denying the motion to amend judgment under section 663; and (3) the February 7, 2018, order denying the motion to amend judgment under Section 473(d) and awarding Hanover only some of its attorneys' fees. Hanover argues the trial court erred: (1) by denying the portion of Hanover's motion for attorneys' fees seeking fees incurred in defending against the Cohen claim; (2) by failing to treat Hanover's motion to amend judgment pursuant to section 663 as a motion brought under Section 473(d); and (3) by denying Hanover's motion to amend judgment under Section 473(d). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS
A. Judgment on the Cross-Complaints
On August 13, 2014, Arrow Concrete Cutting, Inc., a subcontractor hired by Cohen, filed a complaint against Zion Cohen and Cohen's insurance company, alleging Cohen had failed to pay Arrow for work performed. Though the cross-complaint itself is absent from the record before us, it appears Cohen then cross-complained against SHE and Hanover -- SHE's surety -- for breach of contract, indemnity, and negligence. SHE thereafter cross-complained against Cohen and Cohen's sureties for substandard work and indemnity. Hanover also cross-complained against SHE, the Sheetrits, and Cohen. Though Hanover failed to label its two causes of action, it appears its first cause of action was for indemnity against SHE and the Sheetrits, while its second cause of action sought to hold Cohen liable as SHE's and the Sheetrits' "partner or joint venture." SHE, the Sheetrits, and Cohen all answered Hanover's cross-complaint.
Only the three cross-complaints proceeded to a court trial beginning July 19, 2017. On July 21, the court recited a tentative verdict: On Cohen's cross-complaint, the court found in favor of Cohen and against SHE and Hanover in the amount of $100,000, with an offset to be calculated later. On SHE's cross-complaint, the court found against SHE and in favor of Cohen. And on Hanover's cross-complaint, the court found "in favor of Hanover for the $60,000 [payment Hanover made on behalf of SHE] plus interest from the October date [that payment was made] and attorneys' fees as requested." The court then ordered the parties to submit a written "supplemental closing argument" addressing the amounts awarded and any areas in which the parties disagreed with the court's ruling, stating: "This is a tentative ruling. If you think I got it wrong, let me hear your thinking."
Hanover, Cohen, and SHE all filed their supplemental closing arguments in mid-August 2017. In its supplemental closing argument, Hanover argued it "should recover all loss, costs, interest and attorneys' fees in this action from the indemnitors S.H.E. Engineering and Construction Group, Inc., David Sheetrit and Ilana Sheetrit jointly and severally."
On September 20, 2017, the court issued a minute order entitled "Notice of Judgment." The order stated: "After reviewing all supplemental closing briefs, the Court now presents the Judgment, signed and filed this date and photocopies mailed to each party." The judgment provides in relevant part:
"The court renders judgment as follows:
"1. On Zion Cohen's Cross-Complaint against S.H.E. Engineering & Construction Group, Inc. (SHE) and Hanover Insurance Company (Hanover); [sic]
"a. $100,000, as claimed by Zion Cohen on 2/11/14.
"b. Zion Cohen had standing to sue and did business on the subject project in his individual (and dba) capacity. Zion Cohen was a subcontractor, not a partner or joint venture with SHE.
"c. SHE and Hanover are entitled to an offset of $21,100.00 . . . .
"2. SHE shall take nothing on its cross-complaint.
"3. On Hanover's Indemnity Claim against SHE, Hanover shall recover as follows:
"a. $60,101.00 that was paid by Hanover to materialmen on behalf of SHE [plus interest] . . . .
"b. Any portion of the $78,900 owed by SHE and Hanover to Zion Cohen that is in fact paid by Hanover to Zion Cohen.
"c. Attorney fees and costs, as incurred by Hanover pre-suit and for the litigation of Hanover's indemnity action against SHE. Hanover shall not recover from SHE the fees and costs incurred by Hanover to defend the Zion Cohen claim against Hanover. Hanover's decision to not pay the surety claim of Zion Cohen is not chargeable to SHE."
The judgment did not find the Sheetrits liable to Hanover. On September 20, 2017, the court entered a minute order entitled "Notice of Judgment," which was mailed to the parties along with a copy of the judgment. Though missing from the record before us, it appears Cohen served a notice of entry of judgment on October 2, 2017.
B. Hanover Attempts to Amend the Judgment and Requests Attorneys' Fees
On October 5, 2017, Hanover filed a pleading entitled "Motion to Amend Judgment and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof [CCP 663]," asking the court: (1) to "amend the judgment" to "render and adjudge [the Sheetrits] jointly and severally liable" to Hanover along with SHE; and (2) to award Hanover all its requested attorneys' fees. Hanover cited section 663 and argued "[i]t was always understood and agreed between Hanover and the S.H.E. parties that the defendants, [SHE and the Sheetrits] . . . in consideration of Hanover executing bonds at their request would be obligated jointly and severally for all of Hanover's attorneys' fees, loss and expense incurred as a consequence of becoming surety for them." Hanover requested that "the court's conclusions of law conform to the facts -- namely that the S.H.E. defendants [SHE and the Sheetrits] are adjudged jointly and severally liable for all of Hanover's attorneys'[] fees, cost[s] and expenses incurred as their surety in the City of Pasadena project." This motion was set to be heard December 15, 2017.
On November 1, 2017, Hanover filed a motion for attorneys' fees. Though acknowledging that in its September 20 judgment the court had expressly declined to award Hanover fees incurred in defending against the Cohen claim, Hanover nevertheless argued it was entitled to those fees based on the language of the parties' indemnity agreement. Hanover thus requested a "fee award at $39,825.05 unless the court concludes under its Agreement of Indemnity, Hanover should recover its entire attorneys' fees and expenses, in the sum of $73,898.99." Hanover also stated it expected to spend "$1,500 in bringing this motion." This motion was set to be heard February 7, 2018.
On December 15, 2017, the court denied Hanover's section 663 motion to amend the judgment, citing section 663a. The court noted that "more than 60 days has passed from the time the clerk mailed the judgment. Even if the later date is used, the date that Cohen served Notice of Entry of Judg[]ment which occurred on October 3, 2017, the court's power to rule has expired."
On December 15, 2017, section 663a provided, in relevant part: "the power of the court to rule on a motion to set aside and vacate a judgment shall expire 60 days from the mailing of notice of entry of judgment by the clerk of the court pursuant to Section 664.5, or 60 days after service upon the moving party by any party of written notice of entry of the judgment, whichever is earlier . . . . If that motion is not determined within the 60-day period . . . the effect shall be a denial of the motion without further order of the court." (Former Civ. Proc. Code, § 663a, subd. (b).)
The reference to October 3 appears to be a typo, as the court earlier noted that Cohen had served notice of entry of judgment on October 2. December 15, 2017 is more than 60 days after both dates.
Hanover claims the court then "suggested that Hanover supplement or refile it[s motion] under [Code of Civil Procedure] § 473(d)." While nothing in the record evidences such a suggestion, the court's minute order stated that "[i]n the event that the Plaintiff [presumably Hanover] refiles the Motion to Correct the Judgment, the date of February 7, 2018 is reserved." On January 3, 2018, Hanover filed a pleading entitled "Supplement to and Amendment of . . . Hanover Insurance Company's Notice of Motion and Motion to Amend Judgment for Clerical Mistake." As with the motion to amend filed under section 663, but now referencing Section 473(d), Hanover again asked the court "[t]o amend the judgment against S.H.E. ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC., DAVID SHEETRIT AND ILANA SHEETRIT ('S.H.E. defendants') to render and adjudge them jointly and severally liable for the court's award in this matter . . ." and "[t]o render and adjudge the S.H.E. defendants liable jointly and severally for all attorneys' fees, costs and expenses incurred by Hanover in this matter in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Agreement of Indemnity dated September 10, 2010 . . . ."
As noted, the February 7 date was already reserved for Hanover's attorneys' fees motion.
On February 7, 2018, the court denied Hanover's Section 473(d) motion to amend judgment. Noting that Hanover had "miraculously transformed the [section 663] motion [to amend judgment] into a motion under CCP § 473(d) [to amend] a judgment containing a clerical error," the court differentiated between clerical errors, which the court could correct, and judicial errors, which "cannot be corrected by amending the judgment under CCP § 473(d)." It then observed: "Clearly in this case, the 'error' of which Hanover complains was the result of a decision by the court and not a miscalculation in arithmetic, or transposing numbers or some other error in recording the judgment . . . . There are no grounds under CCP 473(d) for which the court can grant relief." The court also reiterated that Hanover's "663 motion was properly denied." The court agreed to amend the judgment to reflect a $40,000 payment Hanover had made to Cohen.
The $40,000 figure appears to be a typo. On December 15, 2017, Cohen filed a partial acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment, acknowledging receipt of a $45,000 payment from Hanover.
On Hanover's attorneys' fees motion, the court noted, "Hanover seeks a total of $73,998.99 [sic] in fees. . . . However, the court has already enter[ed] a judgment indicating that no fees could be recovered for the fees incurred by Hanover in defending Cohen's suit against it." The court thus awarded $39,825.05, the sum Hanover claimed it incurred "pre-suit" and "in the litigation of HANOVER's indemnity action against the S.H.E. defendants."
On February 20, 2018, Hanover filed an "Ex Parte Application for Reconsideration and/or Clarification of Court's Rulings or Order." Hanover again argued its entitlement to all incurred attorneys' fees, and again contended the court should have awarded fees against the Sheetrits, not just SHE. Hanover then blamed the court clerk for setting the hearing date for its section 663 motion to amend judgment on a date after the court's jurisdiction to rule had expired and argued this constituted clerical error from which relief could be granted. Hanover also noted the court's February 7, 2018, minute order failed to award the $1,500 in attorneys' fees Hanover incurred in bringing the motion for fees. The court ordered the judgment amount corrected to include the omitted $1,500 in fees but otherwise denied Hanover's motion. Hanover does not appeal this order. Instead, on March 5, 2018, Hanover filed a notice of appeal appealing the September 20, 2017, judgment, the December 15, 2017, order, and the February 7, 2018, order.
To the extent Hanover suggests it was the court's or clerk's duty to ensure Hanover's motion to amend was heard within the period the court had jurisdiction to grant it, Hanover is mistaken. (See Garibotti v. Hinkle (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 470, 482 ["'"It is the duty of the [moving] party to be present and see that his motion for a new trial is set for hearing within the statutory [time] period. If it has been inadvertently continued by the court to a date too late under the statute the party should move the court to advance the matter on the calendar"'"].)
C. The Court Enters Amended Judgments
On March 22, 2018, the court entered an amended judgment that calculated the interest owed to Hanover by SHE, awarded Hanover the $45,000 Hanover had paid to Cohen on the court's award from Cohen's cross-complaint, and inserted a figure for the awarded attorneys' fees. On April 10, 2018, the court entered a second amended judgment, correcting a typo from the March 22 judgment. There have been no appeals from either amended judgment.
The March 22 judgment summed $60,101 and $4,281 and arrived at $54,382. The April 10 judgment corrected this to $64,382.
DISCUSSION
A. Hanover's Appeal of the September 20 , 2017 Judgment Is Untimely
Hanover's March 5, 2018, notice of appeal challenges a September 20, 2017, judgment, a December 15, 2017 order, and a February 7, 2018, order. Typically, the deadline to appeal a judgment or appealable order is the earlier of: (a) 60 days after notice of entry of judgment or order is served, or (b) 180 days after the judgment or order is entered. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(a)(1), (e).) Here, because Hanover also filed a motion to vacate the September 20, 2017, judgment on October 5, 2017, California Rules of Court, rule 8.108(c)(2) extends its deadline to appeal that judgment to "90 days after the first notice of intention to move -- or motion -- is filed." Ninety days after October 5, 2017, was January 3, 2018. Hanover's March 5, 2018, notice of appeal was thus two months too late to appeal the September 20, 2017, judgment. The time "in which to file a notice of appeal is mandatory, and we do not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal filed even one day after it expires." (Guillemin v. Stein (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 156, 161.) Therefore, we dismiss any appeal of the September 20, 2017 judgment.
B. The Court Did Not Err on December 15 , 2017 , By Failing to Treat Hanover's Motion Under Section 663 as a Motion Under Section 473(d)
The court denied Hanover's initial motion under section 663 as untimely under section 663a. Hanover does not dispute that its motion was untimely if brought under section 663. Instead, Hanover argues the trial court's denial of its initial motion to amend judgment "based on timing considerations" constitutes reversible error because the trial court "should have treated the motion as one under Code of Civil Procedure §473(d), consistent with section 473(d)'s underlying policy and concomitant liberal construction." We disagree.
Hanover argues it filed a "motion to amend and correct the judgment" and the trial court "treat[ed] the motion as one solely under Code of Civil Procedure § 663." Not exactly. Hanover's initial motion expressly relied on section 663. It was entitled "Motion to Amend Judgment and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof [CCP 663]".
Hanover cites Sole Energy Co. v. Petrominerals Corp. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 187 for the proposition that the court had discretion to consider its motion one brought under Section 473(d) regardless of the label. Regardless of the court's discretion, Hanover's request was "that the court's conclusions of law conform to the facts -- namely that the S.H.E. defendants are adjudged jointly and severally liable for all of Hanover's attorneys'[] fees, cost and expenses incurred as their surety in the City of Pasadena project." As explained below, asking the court to change its "conclusions of law" is not a request to correct a clerical error; the motion could not properly have been brought under Section 473(d).
Moreover, no prejudice could have resulted from the court's failure to consider Hanover's initial motion as one under Section 473(d) because the court ultimately permitted Hanover to argue its entitlement to relief under that section. The court did not abuse its discretion by not treating Hanover's initial motion to amend judgment pursuant to section 663 as one under Section 473(d).
C. The Court Did Not Err on February 7 , 2018 , in Partially Denying Hanover's Motion for Attorneys' Fees
In its September 20, 2017, judgment, the court expressly denied Hanover's request for the entirety of its attorneys' fees. After finding Hanover was entitled to attorneys' fees and costs pre-suit for the litigation of Hanover's indemnity action against SHE, the court held: "Hanover shall not recover from SHE the fees and costs incurred by Hanover to defend the Zion Cohen claim against Hanover. Hanover's decision to not pay the surety claim of Zion Cohen is not chargeable to SHE." Notwithstanding the court's ruling, Hanover thereafter sought a total of $73,898.99 in attorneys' fees, representing all fees, costs, and expenses it had incurred, including in defending against Cohen's cross-complaint. In its February 7, 2018, order, the court observed that it had "already enter[ed] a judgment indicating that no fees could be recovered for the fees incurred by Hanover in defending Cohen's suit against it." The court awarded Hanover the remainder of its requested fees.
In appealing the February 7 order, Hanover argues the court erred by failing to award it the fees incurred in defending against Cohen's claim because such fees were covered by the parties' indemnity agreement. But Hanover has forfeited this argument by failing to timely appeal from the September 20, 2017, judgment in which the court initially and unequivocally determined Hanover could not recover those fees. (Guillemin v. Stein, supra, 104 Cal.App.4th at p. 161 ["It is immaterial that the trial court later 'confirmed' its sanctions award in a postjudgment order from which there is a timely appeal. In order to be appealable, a postjudgment order must also raise an issue different from those embraced in the judgment; otherwise it would give a party two chances to appeal the same ruling and thus (as in the present case) circumvent the time limit on appealing from the judgment"], citing Lakin v. Watkins Associated Industries (1993) 6 Cal.4th 644, 651; Nellie Gail Ranch Owners Assn. v. McMullin (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 982, 1007-1008 [""'[W]here several judgments and/or orders occurring close in time are separately appealable (e.g., judgment and order awarding attorney fees), each appealable judgment and order must be expressly specified -- in either a single notice of appeal or multiple notices of appeal -- in order to be reviewable on appeal.'"" "Indeed, '"[w]hen a party wishes to challenge both a final judgment and a postjudgment costs/attorney fee order, the normal procedure is to file two separate appeals: one from the final judgment, and a second from the postjudgment order."'" "'"'[I]f a judgment or order is appealable, an aggrieved party must file a timely appeal or forever lose the opportunity to obtain appellate review'"'"], italics omitted.)
We therefore dismiss this portion of the appeal as untimely.
D. The Court Did Not Err on February 7 , 2018 in Denying Hanover's Section 473(d) Motion to Amend Judgment
On December 15, 2017, the court denied Hanover's motion to amend judgment as untimely under section 663a. Though Hanover claims the trial court "suggested that Hanover supplement or refile it[s motion] under [Code of Civil Procedure] § 473(d)," the record before us is bereft of such a suggestion. In any event, on January 3, 2018, Hanover filed a pleading entitled "Supplement to and Amendment of . . . Hanover Insurance Company's Notice of Motion and Motion to Amend Judgment for Clerical Mistake; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof [¶] CCP 473(d)." As with its previous motion pursuant to section 663, Hanover asked the court to "render and adjudge" the Sheetrits jointly and severally liable to Hanover and to award Hanover the entirety of its attorneys' fees. On February 7, 2018, the court again denied Hanover's motion, finding Hanover's claim was one of judicial error, not clerical error. Specifically, the court found that "[c]learly in this case, the 'error' of which Hanover complains was the result of a decision by the court and not a miscalculation in arithmetic, or transposing numbers or some other error in recording the judgment."
Hanover admits "[t]he trial court correctly noted the key distinction of whether a given error is 'clerical,' and thus subject to correction under section 473(d), or 'judicial,' and not subject to correction under section 473(d)." Hanover argues the judgment contains a clerical error because "the omission of David and Ilana Sheetrit, individual indemnitors, as judgment debtors, does appear to have been inadvertent." As evidence, Hanover argues the Sheetrits admitted to signing the indemnity agreement and "the trial court offered no reasoning that might suggest the omission of the Sheetrits [as judgment debtors] was deliberate." Hanover misunderstands the standard. The issue is neither whether the evidence supported Hanover's claim that the Sheetrits should be judgment debtors, nor whether the trial court offered any reasoning to explain the omission of the Sheetrits as judgment debtors. The issue is whether their omission as judgment debtors was an error made by the court in rendering judgment (and thus a potential judicial error) or an error made in recording the judgment rendered by the court (and thus a clerical error). (In re Candelario (1970) 3 Cal.3d 702, 705 ["Clerical error, however, is to be distinguished from judicial error which cannot be corrected by amendment. The distinction between clerical error and judicial error is 'whether the error was made in rendering the judgment, or in recording the judgment rendered.' (46 Am.Jur.2d, Judgments, § 202.)"].) "'If the court misconstrued the evidence before it, or misapplied the law applicable to the facts disclosed by the evidence, or was even misled by counsel, such an error was in no sense a clerical error . . . .'" (Tokio Marine & Fire Ins. Corp. v. Western Pacific Roofing Corp. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 110, 118, quoting Lankton v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1936) 5 Cal.2d 694, 696.) Hanover's Section 473(d) motion -- like its section 663 motion -- asked the court "to render and adjudge" the Sheetrits liable for the award against Hanover. This was manifestly not a request to correct an error in recording the judgment rendered, but "to render" a different judgment. Thus, it was not cognizable under Section 473(d).
"Section 473 is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and the trial court's order will not be disturbed absent a showing of clear abuse of discretion. [Citation.] Whether the error was clerical in nature is a matter for the trial court to determine. [Citations.] Great weight should be placed on the trial court's declaration as to its intention in signing the judgment as the nature of the error is seldom clear from the record or other extrinsic evidence. [Citation.]" (Conservatorship of Tobias (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 1031, 1035.)
Here, the trial court unequivocally expressed its intention in signing the judgment, finding the "error" to be "the result of a decision by the court . . . ." In other words, if the omission of the Sheetrits was erroneous, it was a judicial error and not a clerical error fixable under Section 473(d). (Cf. In re Estate of Goldberg (1938) 10 Cal.2d 709, 711, 716 [when a will provided real property would be distributed to certain parties and the court issued a minute order stating "Decree of distribution granted in accordance with terms of the will," the omission of one such party from the decree of distribution was clerical error].) Because the trial court's failure to include the Sheetrits in the judgment was, if error, a judicial one, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hanover's motion to amend judgment under Section 473(d).
Hanover also argues "it appears that the trial court may intended [sic] its analysis of section 473(d) to apply only to attorneys' fees, rather than to the correction of the proper parties to the judgment" because after finding the Sheetrits' omission as judgment debtors was due to a decision by the court, the order went on to say "[t]he so-called error was in rendering the judgment for attorneys' fees." We are not persuaded. While Hanover is correct that the partial award of attorneys' fees is only one of the errors it complained of in its motion to amend, the trial court was aware Hanover had other complaints, noting "Hanover also moved pursuant to CCP § 663 seeking an order amending the judgment to render SHE, D. Shee[t]rit and I. Shee[t]rit jointly and several[ly] liable for all the fees[,] costs and expenses in the matter." --------
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Respondents are awarded their costs.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
MANELLA, P. J.
We concur: COLLINS, J. CURREY, J.