Sanchez-Corea v. Bank of America
California Supreme Court
38 Cal. 3d 892, 215 Cal. Rptr. 679, 701 P.2d 826 (1985)
- Written by Mary Phelan D'Isa, JD
Facts
Sanchez-Corea (plaintiff) sued Bank of America (BOA) (defendant) for numerous claims and received a $2-million-plus verdict. BOA moved for a new trial and asserted six grounds: (1) irregularity in the jury proceedings; (2) jury misconduct; (3) excessive damages; (4) insufficient evidence; (5) verdict against the law; and (6) error in law to which BOA excepted during trial. Exactly 60 days after notice of entry of judgment, the trial court granted BOA’s motion for new trial in a minute order that failed to specify the grounds or reasons for granting the new trial. Seven days later, the trial court issued a second order granting BOA’s new-trial motion and vacating the judgment. The second order cited and explained the sole ground for granting the motion was insufficiency of the evidence. Sanchez-Corea appealed and argued that the first order was defective, but not void, for its failure to list a ground for granting the new trial, and the second order was invalid, and the court lacked jurisdiction to review it because it was made more than 60 days after entry of the judgment in violation of California Code of Procedure Section 660. Sanchez-Corea also argued that because the second order could not be affirmed on any ground, the order should be reversed and the judgment reinstated. BOA did not file a cross-appeal.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Reynoso, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 829,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
