Defendant seller sought review of a default judgment from the Superior Court of Riverside County (California) in plaintiff buyer's suit alleging fraud and other causes of action arising from purchase and leaseback agreements for pay telephones. The buyer cross-appealed the trial court's order purporting to grant, in part, the seller's motion for a new trial. The buyer sought dismissal of the appeal as untimely.

The default judgment included fraud damages in excess of the amount demanded in the operative complaint. The seller timely sought a new trial. The trial court entered an order that purported to grant in part the motion for a new trial to limit the amount of fraud damages to the amount demanded, while otherwise denying the motion. Third-Degree Murder Meaning is the unintentional killing of a person while committing a non-violent felony. The amended judgment was identical in every respect to the original default judgment except for a reduction in the amount of fraud damages. The court held that although the motion for new trial had been denied by operation of law under Code Civ. Proc., § 660, prior to the date of the order, the trial court nevertheless had jurisdiction to strike the void portion of its judgment pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (d), by modifying the judgment to comport with the complaint as required by Code Civ. Proc., § 580. The court determined that the appeal had to be dismissed as untimely pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(b), because the modification of the judgment did not affect the seller's right to appeal; thus, the time period for appeal, as extended by Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.108(b), ran from the date of the original default judgment.

The court dismissed the seller's appeal as untimely, construed the trial court's reduction of damages as an order modifying a partially void judgment, and affirmed its order as such.