## Facts

- F.P. alleged Joseph Monier committed sexual battery against her in 1990–1991 when she was 10 and he was 17.
- F.P. sued Monier (and initially sued Monier’s parents for negligent supervision; those claims settled before trial).
- After a bench trial, the court issued a tentative decision finding Monier committed sexual assault and that his conduct was a substantial factor causing F.P.’s injuries.
- The tentative decision indicated total damages of \$305,096, including lost income, medical expenses, and noneconomic damages.
- Monier timely requested a statement of decision under Code of Civil Procedure § 632, seeking the factual and legal basis for the damages award.
- The trial court entered a final judgment for \$305,096 without issuing a statement of decision.
- At trial, evidence also showed F.P.’s father sexually abused her during the same general period.
- Two psychologists testified that F.P.’s psychological harms were attributable to both the father’s abuse and Monier’s abuse, and could not be reliably separated; one opined the father’s abuse was more traumatic.

## Issues

1. Whether a trial court’s failure to issue a statement of decision after a timely request under Code of Civil Procedure § 632 is reversible error per se.
2. Whether such an omission is instead subject to harmless-error review under California Constitution, article VI, section 13, requiring a showing of miscarriage of justice.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of California held that a trial court’s failure to issue a requested statement of decision is not reversible per se.
- The omission is a procedural error governed by California Constitution, article VI, section 13, and warrants reversal only if it resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
- Applying harmless-error review, the court concluded the record (including the tentative decision and trial evidence) allowed meaningful review and did not show prejudice from the missing statement of decision.
- The court affirmed the judgment for F.P.

## Legal Principles

- Code of Civil Procedure § 632 requires a statement of decision on principal controverted issues in a bench trial when timely requested by a party appearing at trial.
- California Constitution, article VI, section 13 bars reversal for procedural error unless, after review of the entire cause including the evidence, the error resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
- A trial court’s failure to provide a requested statement of decision is an “error as to [a] matter of procedure” subject to harmless-error analysis, not automatic reversal.
- To obtain reversal, an appellant must show prejudice from the omission, such as that the absence of findings materially impaired appellate review or affected the outcome.

## Conclusion

The California Supreme Court ruled that a trial court’s failure to issue a timely requested statement of decision under Code of Civil Procedure § 632 is reviewed for harmless error under article VI, section 13 of the California Constitution, and affirmed because the omission did not cause a miscarriage of justice on this record.


F.P. v. Monier, 3 Cal. 5th 1099 (Cal. 2017)