Under this deferential standard of review, findings of fact are liberally construed to support the judgment and we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, drawing all reasonable inferences in support of the findings." (Thompson v. Asimos (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 970, 981 (Thompson).)
As we explain, because Berdeski's request for a statement of decision was legally insufficient, Berdeski has waived his objections to the adequacy of the statement of decision. (Thompson v. Asimos (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 970, 983 (Thompson).) 1. Law
[Citation.] Specifically, '[u]nder the doctrine of implied findings, the reviewing court must infer, following a bench trial, that the trial court impliedly made every factual finding necessary to support its decision.' [Citation.]" (Thompson v. Asimos (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 970, 981 (Thompson).) However, when a party has made a proper request for a statement of decision, "the scope of appellate review may be affected.
, we are guided by general rules of appellate review. (See Thompson v. Asimos (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 970, 983 (Thompson).)
) To properly preserve objections on appeal, the objecting party must request a statement of decision pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 632 and then, after the statement of decision is issued, bring any omissions or ambiguities to the attention of the trial judge prior to judgment or connection with a new trial motion as required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1590(d)-(g). (Thompson v. Asimos (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 970, 982 (Thompson).) There is no contention that Valentine did not comply with the required procedure and, thus, the court was required to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 632 and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1590(f) by issuing a proposed statement of decision followed by a statement of decision and judgment.
[¶] . . . It is not our role as a reviewing court to reweigh the evidence or to assess witness credibility." (See Thompson v. Asimos (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 970, 981 (Thompson).)
Moreover, "[u]nder the doctrine of implied findings, the reviewing court must infer, following a bench trial, that the trial court impliedly made every factual finding necessary to support its decision." (Fladeboe v. American Isuzu Motors Inc. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 42, 48 (Fladeboe); Ribakoff v. City of Long Beach (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 150, 162 [same]; see Vasquez v. LBS Financial Credit Union (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 97, 109 [substantial evidence standard of review applies to express and implied findings of fact made by the superior court in its statement of decision rendered after a bench trial]; Thompson v. Asimos (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 970, 981 (Thompson) [same].) However, "'[i]n reviewing a judgment based upon a statement of decision following a bench trial, we review questions of law de novo.'"
On the contrary, "[i]n reviewing a judgment based upon a statement of decision following a bench trial, . . . [w]e apply a substantial evidence standard of review to the trial court's findings of fact. [Citation.] Under this deferential standard of review, findings of fact are liberally construed to support the judgment and we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, drawing all reasonable inferences in support of the findings." (Thompson v. Asimos (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 970, 981 (Thompson).) "The trial court sits as trier of fact and it is called upon to determine that a witness it to be believed or not believed.
But they forfeited those arguments by not objecting to the tentative decision in the trial court on the grounds they now assert. (In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133-1134; Thompson v. Asimos (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 970, 983 (Thompson).) They further contend the trial court violated their rights under Code of Civil Procedure section 269, subdivision (a)(1) by refusing to permit a court reporter to take down closing arguments.
Code of Civil Procedure sections 632 and 634 "establish a two-step procedure for requesting a statement of decision and preserving objections for pursuit on appeal." (Thompson v. Asimos (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 970, 982 (Thompson).) "Under section 632, upon a party's request after trial, the court must issue a statement of decision 'explaining the factual and legal basis for its decision as to each of the principal controverted issues at trial.'