CCP 634.

Effect of failure to resolve issue

When a statement of decision does not resolve a controverted issue, or if the statement is
ambiguous and the record shows that the omission or ambiguity was brought to the
attention of the trial court either prior to entry of judgment or in conjunction with a
motion under Section 657 or 663, it shall not be inferred on appeal or upon a motion
under Section 657 or 663 that the trial court decided in favor of the prevailing party as to
those facts or on that issue.

Counsels failure to call the absence of specific grounds to the trial courts attention
waives any irregularity. Cohen v. Superior Court (1966) 244 CA2d 650, 654.

Similarly, when a trial court, through inadvertence or neglect, fails to rule or to reserve its
ruling, "the party who objected must make some effort to [*44] have the court actually
rule. If the point is not pressed and is forgotten, he may be deemed to have waived or
abandoned it, just as if he had failed to make the objection in the first place." (3 Witkin,
Cal. Evidence (3d ed. 1986) Introduction of Evidence at Trial, 2030, p. 1992, italics in
original; see also People v. Rhodes (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 541, 554 [261 Cal.Rptr. 1]
[failure to secure rulings on motions for transcript of voir [***54] dire and authorization
of investigative fees waived issues on appeal]; People v. Obie (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 744,
750 [116 Cal.Rptr. 283], overruled on another ground in People v. Rollo (1977) 20 Cal.3d
109, 120, fn. 4 [141 Cal.Rptr. 177, 569 P.2d 771] [failure to secure ruling on Penal Code
section 995 motion waived issued on appeal]; and People v. Staver (1953) 115
Cal.App.2d 711, 724 [252 P.2d 700] [failure to rule on admission of documentary
evidence waived issue on appeal].)

Under the "doctrine of implied findings," a "party must state any objection to the
statement [of decision] in order to avoid an implied finding on appeal in favor of the
prevailing party . . . . If a party does not bring such deficiencies to the trial court's
attention, that party waives the right to claim on appeal that the statement was deficient . .
. and hence the appellate court will imply findings to support the judgment." (SFPP, L.P.,
supra, 121 Cal.App.4th at p. 462, quoting In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d
1130, 1133-34, 275 Cal. Rptr. 797, fn. omitted.) 4 Accordingly, "the doctrine (1) directs
the appellate court to presume that the trial court made all factual findings necessary to
support the judgment so long as substantial evidence supports those findings and (2)
applies unless the omissions and ambiguities in the statement of decision are brought to
the attention of the superior court in a timely [*26] manner." (SFPP, L.P., supra, 121
Cal.App.4th at p. 462.) In other words, an implied finding is barred on appeal only if "the
party attacking the judgment requested a specific finding on the issue in question." (Auer
v. Frank (1964) 227 Cal. App. 2d 396, 406, 38 Cal. Rptr. 684; see also Palmer v.
Financial Indemnity Co. (1963) 215 Cal. App. 2d 419, 436, 30 Cal. Rptr. 204 [concluding
the "unclean hands" defense was unavailable on appeal absent a request for a special
finding on it by defendant].)

4 The doctrine of implied findings is based on Code of Civil Procedure section 634,
which provides: "When a statement of decision does not resolve a controverted issue, or
if the statement is ambiguous and the record shows that the omission or ambiguity was
brought to the attention of the trial court either prior to entry of judgment or in
conjunction with a motion under Section 657 or 663, it shall not be inferred on appeal . . .
that the trial court decided in favor of the prevailing party as to those facts or on that
issue.