 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rochin v. Johnson11/19/1998
me final, plainly does not give the amended judgment preclusive effect. The amended judgment is a nullity, and can have no such effect.
In addition, the trial court's subsequent order denying plaintiff's motion to vacate the amended judgment, in that it gives effect to a void judgment, is itself void. (County of Ventura v. Tillett, supra, 133 Cal.App.3d at p. 110.) While defendants are correct in stating that the order denying the motion to vacate was itself appealable, plaintiff's failure to appeal from it, thus allowing it to become final, makes no difference. A "final" but void order can have no preclusive effect. "`A void judgment [or order] is, in legal effect, no judgment. By it no rights are divested. From it no rights can be obtained. Being worthless in itself, all proceedings founded upon it are equally worthless. It neither binds nor bars any one.' [Citation.]" (Bennett v. Wilson (1898) 122 Cal. 509, 513-514.) We conclude that the trial court erred in sustaining defendants' demurrer on the basis of res judicata.
DISPOSITION
The judgment of dismissal is reversed, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings in keeping with this opinion. Plaintiff and appellant to recover costs on appeal.
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
VOGEL (C.S.), P.J.
We concur:
HASTINGS, J. CURRY, J.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|