Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. SC102790. Irving Shimer, Judge.
Reed Smith, Wendy S. Albers and Kasey J. Curtis for Defendant and Appellant.
Law Offices of Thomas T. Yong and Thomas Yong for Plaintiffs and Respondents.
CHAVEZ, J.
Defendant and appellant Bruce Lerner (Lerner) appeals from the judgment entered against him on his cross-complaint against plaintiffs and respondents Pride Builders & Development Corporation (Pride Builders) and Shai Magdish (Magdish) in this action arising out of a home remodeling contract dispute. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court’s failure to issue a statement of decision was reversible error. We conclude that it was. We therefore reverse the judgment and remand the matter for the issuance of a statement of decision.
BACKGROUND
Lerner and Pride Builders entered into a contract to remodel Lerner’s home. Magdish was a sales manager who signed the contract on behalf of Pride Builders.
During the remodel, a dispute arose concerning the scope of work Pride Builders was obligated to perform under the contract. Specifically, the parties disagreed as to whether Pride Builders had agreed to correct certain defective work performed by a previous contractor.
Pride Builders eventually stopped work, filed a mechanic’s lien, and sued Lerner and his wife Kimberly for breach of contract. Lerner and his wife cross-complained against Pride Builders and Magdish for breach of contract, negligence, fraud, and breach of express and implied warranties.
After a four-day court trial, the trial court dismissed the cross-complaint against Magdish and ruled against both Lerner and Pride Builders on their respective claims. In a minute order dated April 20, 2010, the trial court stated: “Neither side is entitled to any recovery from the other side based on the evidence and arguments submitted. Plaintiff is awarded nothing from defendants on the complaint. Cross-complainants are awarded nothing from the remaining cross-defendant on the cross-complaint. Each side will bear its/his/her own costs and attorney’s fees. [¶]... [¶] Counsel for plaintiff is ordered to prepare, serve, and file a proposed judgment within ten days.”
On April 30, 2010, Lerner filed a request for a statement of decision, asking the trial court to address 21 controverted issues. On that same day, judgment was filed, and no statement of decision was rendered.
On June 3, 2010, the trial court issued a minute order stating that it had been unaware of Lerner’s request for a statement of decision until that morning, when the request was delivered to the court for the first time. In response to Lerner’s request that the court address 21 purportedly controverted issues, the trial court stated: “Regrettably, I am unable to locate the notes I took during the trial and my memory of the individual specifics of the claims asserted under the complaint and under the first amended cross-complaint is not as clear and specific as I would wish it were. [¶] I can say I concluded neither side was sufficiently credible to enable me to come to a conclusion as to how much, if anything, plaintiff was entitled to recover or how much, if anything, cross-complainants were entitled to recover under the apparently defensive cross-complaint filed four months after plaintiff recorded its mechanics lien claim.”
Lerner thereafter filed this appeal.
Kimberly Lerner is not a party to this appeal.
DISCUSSION
Code of Civil Procedure section 632 requires a trial court to issue a statement of decision explaining the factual and legal bases for its decision upon the timely request of any party appearing at trial. The statute provides, in pertinent part: “The court shall issue a statement of decision explaining the factual and legal basis for its decision as to each of the principal controverted issues at trial upon the request of any party appearing at the trial. The request must be made within 10 days after the court announces a tentative decision.... The request for a statement of decision shall specify those controverted issues as to which the party is requesting a statement of decision.”
The statement of decision must provide an explanation of the factual and legal bases for the court’s decision regarding the principal controverted issues at trial as listed on a party’s request. (Hellman v. La Cumbre Golf & Country Club (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1224, 1230.) The trial court is not required to address each question listed in a party’s request for a statement of decision but need only explain the factual and legal basis for its decision. (Ibid.) Such explanation is the “touchstone” for appellate review in determining whether the trial court’s decision is supported by the facts and law. (Miramar Hotel Corp. v. Frank B. Hall & Co. (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 1126, 1129 (Miramar).) A trial court’s failure to issue a statement of decision following a party’s timely request therefor is per se reversible error. (Id. at p. 1126.)
Lerner’s request for a statement of decision was timely filed. The trial court’s failure to issue a statement of decision requires reversal of the judgment. (Miramar, supra, 163 Cal.App.3d at p. 1126.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is reversed, and the matter is remanded to the trial court for the issuance of a statement of decision explaining the factual and legal basis for the court’s decision. Lerner is entitled to costs on appeal.
We note that the record on appeal includes a transcript of the trial.
We concur: BOREN, P. J., DOI TODD. J.