Rogers v. Hirschi, 190 Cal. Rptr. 575

Summary

**Rogers v. Hirschi (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 847** **Topics:** Finality of judgments; amendment of final judgment; void vs. voidable judgments; excess of jurisdiction; estoppel; creditor claims against estates (Prob. Code § 707). **Holdings:** A court cannot summarily amend a final judgment absent clerical error or a void judgment. The failure to file a creditor's claim against an estate does not deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction but constitutes an excess of jurisdiction. A defendant who fails to raise the defect at trial, and instead consents to and permits the judgment to become final, is estopped from later attacking it as being in excess of jurisdiction. **Outcome:** Orders amending the judgment and satisfying it as amended were reversed.

Holdings

1. The trial court lacked authority to amend the final judgment because there was no clerical error and the judgment was not void. A court cannot summarily amend a final judgment even if it is wrong in law.
2. The judgment was not void for lack of jurisdiction. The court had subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction. The failure to file a creditor's claim was at most an excess of jurisdiction, not a lack of jurisdiction.
3. The defendant was estopped from asserting any excess of jurisdiction because he failed to raise the issue in a timely manner, allowed the case to proceed to trial, and consented to the judgment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court had authority to amend a final judgment that was neither a clerical error nor void.
2. Whether the judgment was void for lack of jurisdiction due to the plaintiff's failure to file a creditor's claim in the probate estate.
3. Whether the defendant was estopped from asserting any excess of jurisdiction.

Disposition

reversed