Sua Sponte, with a Side of Suggestion

Spector v. Spector, No. C084628 (D3 Jun. 4, 2018)

A family court in San Joaquin County overseeing the divorce of Rachelle and Phil Spector* ordered Phil to pay a certain amount of temporary spousal support. But after Phil’s attorney told the judge (in an email, cc Rachelle) that the ordered support exceeded his cash flow the Court decided to “sua sponte” reconsider and reduce the obligation. Wife objects—and because support orders are immediately appealable—appeals.

There’s a lot of family law stuff flying around here, but the basic procedural point isn’t too complicated. California has a statute—Code of Civil Procedure § 1008—that limits the means by which sets a tight time limit on a party’s seeking reconsideration and imposes other procedural limitations. Courts have generally read § 1008 as “jurisdictional,” in the sense that the Court loses power to consider a reconsideration motion after the time runs.

But if read too broadly, § 1008 could impinge on the Court’s prerogative to change its own mind, an inherent power of being a judge. So back in 2005, the California Supreme Court held that, while § 1008 might limit the time by which a party can move for reconsideration, separation of powers prevented the courts from reading the statute to bar a court from sua sponte reconsidering, so long as its jurisdiction hasn’t been taken away by the finality of a judgment or the filing of a notice of appeal. Le Francois v. Goel, 35 Cal. 4th 1094 (2005). The Court further noted that the inherent power to reconsider isn’t precluded when the court does so “in response to a party’s suggestion,” so long as there’s no ex parte contact. So why move when you can “suggest,” which is basically what happened here?

Wife tries to argue we’re outside of the Le Francois frame because the order at issue is a final, appealable order, albeit an interlocutory one. The Court of Appeal doesn’t agree. There’s a pretty on point family law case—In re Marriage of Barthold, 158 Cal. App. 4th 1301 (2008)—that applies Le Francois to a similar order. However final and appealable the order was, no appeal had been taken and the time to appeal had not run. Under the circumstances, the trial court had the inherent power to reconsider.

Affirmed. 


*Yeah, that Phil Spector. He’s still in jail, doing nineteen to life for murder two. Which might be the cause of some of his cashflow issues.