AB 515 removes the blanket requirement that superior courts issue formal written findings of fact and conclusions of law when the court tries a question of fact. Instead, it requires the court to issue a statement of decision explaining the factual and legal basis for its disposition on each principal controverted issue when any party requests one at trial.
The request must be made before the matter is submitted for decision and must identify the controverted issues for which a statement is sought.
The bill also sets out who drafts statements, how they are served, a process for objections and finality, limited circumstances when an oral statement is acceptable, and gives the Judicial Council authority to adopt implementing rules and forms. For judges, litigators, and court administrators, the change refocuses post-trial work around targeted explanations rather than exhaustive written findings and creates new procedural steps attorneys must track to preserve rights on appeal.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill replaces a mandatory requirement for written findings and conclusions with a system where courts issue statements of decision on the principal controverted issues when requested by a party at trial. Courts may still issue statements on their own motion, order parties to draft proposed statements, and accept oral statements in narrowly defined short-trial situations.
Who It Affects
Trial judges, civil litigators, appellate counsel, and court clerks in California superior courts are directly affected; family-law practitioners also face altered timing rules because the bill allows the court to shorten or otherwise modify time limits in Family Code actions. The Judicial Council will be responsible for procedural rules and forms that local courts and practitioners will adopt.
Why It Matters
The change aims to reduce courts' drafting burden and focus post-trial explanations on disputed issues, which may speed resolution and narrow appellate disputes. At the same time, it creates discrete statutory procedures (requests, objections, service) that litigators must follow precisely to preserve issues for appeal.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 515 reframes how superior courts explain their factual and legal reasoning after a bench trial. Rather than a mandatory set of formal findings and conclusions, the court provides a statement of decision that addresses each principal controverted issue a party identifies at trial.
That shifts the dialogue from exhaustive, court-crafted findings to concise, issue-focused explanations tied to what the parties say is in dispute.
Practically, attorneys at trial must decide whether to ask for a statement and, if so, be intentional about which controverted issues they identify. The bill preserves judicial flexibility: a court can issue a statement even without a request, can ask parties to prepare a draft, and may accept an oral statement if the trial was short and the parties are present.
Those features are designed to allocate drafting work between courts and litigants and to limit unnecessary written work when an oral recitation suffices.What changes for courtroom practice is primarily procedural discipline. Counsel will need to track the moment of submission and make timely, clear requests specifying issues.
Courts and counsel will have a more structured back-and-forth—drafts, objections, and rulings—before the statement becomes final. That changes how attorneys preserve appellate arguments: failing to engage in the statutory process risks leaving the trial explanation locked in a form that may be harder to challenge on appeal.Finally, AB 515 tasks the Judicial Council with creating rules and standard forms.
That means the statute sets the framework but leaves much of the practical detail—how courts implement the process, which forms litigants use, and how timelines are managed—to centralized rulemaking, which will matter a great deal for day-to-day practice.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill replaces the mandatory requirement of written findings of fact and conclusions of law in superior-court bench trials with a party-triggered statement of decision focused on principal controverted issues.
A party must request the statement of decision before the matter is submitted for decision and must identify the controverted issues for which it seeks an explanation.
The statute allows the court to accept an oral statement of decision on the record when the trial concludes within one calendar day or totals less than eight hours across multiple days, otherwise the statement must be written.
After the court serves a statement of decision, parties have a short, defined window to serve and file objections; if objections are not resolved or acted on within the prescribed procedures, the statement becomes final under statutory deeming rules.
The Judicial Council must adopt implementing court rules and prepare standardized request forms, and the statute becomes operative on January 1, 2027.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Request-triggered statements of decision
This subsection eliminates the automatic requirement for written findings and conclusions when the court is the trier of fact. Instead, any party who appeared at trial may request a statement of decision explaining the factual and legal basis for the court's decision on each principal controverted issue. The request must be made before the matter is submitted for decision, and it must identify the specific controverted issues for which a statement is requested. Practically, this makes preservation at trial an affirmative act: counsel must timely and specifically frame the issues they want the court to address.
Form and service of the statement
The section requires that the statement of decision be written unless the parties agree otherwise; the written statement must be served on all parties who appeared at trial. It creates a narrow exception allowing an oral statement on the record if the trial is finished within one calendar day or occupies less than eight hours across multiple days. The provision reduces routine written drafting for short matters while keeping a written record as the default for more substantial trials.
Court discretion and party-drafted statements
If no timely request is made, the court may rule without issuing a statement or may choose to issue one anyway. Where a party requests a statement, the court may direct one or more parties to prepare a draft within a specified period; the court must thereafter issue its own statement. That creates a common practice where parties prepare proposed statements for judicial editing, shifting some drafting workload to counsel while preserving judicial control over the final language.
Objections, finality, and proposed judgments
After service of the statement, parties may serve and file objections; the statute provides a short period for doing so and statutory rules for how objections become final if not ruled upon. The court may rule with or without a hearing, and any amended statement issued after resolving objections becomes final on issuance. The court may also prepare and serve a proposed judgment or order a party to do so, and parties have a limited window to object to the proposed judgment. Together these provisions create a compact post-trial cycle: statement, objections, rulings or deeming, then judgment.
Extensions, Family Code adjustments, Judicial Council rules, operative date
The court may extend any statutory times or excuse late compliance for good cause before judgment, and in Family Code actions the court may shorten times for good cause. The Judicial Council must adopt or amend rules and prepare forms to implement the section. The statute contains an explicit operative date, bringing the new framework into force statewide beginning January 1, 2027.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Trial judges — they gain flexibility to focus written output on contentious issues and to accept oral explanations in brief trials, reducing drafting time on routine matters.
- Litigators who define issues precisely — attorneys who make targeted, timely requests can obtain concise statements that narrow appellate questions and reduce the need to litigate over peripheral findings.
- Appellate counsel — clearer, issue-focused statements of decision can sharpen the appellate record and reduce ambiguity about the factual and legal bases for trial rulings.
- Court administrators — standardized forms and Judicial Council rules may streamline post-trial workflows and reduce inconsistent local practices.
- Clients with short trials — parties in brief bench trials may avoid lengthy written opinions and reach finality faster when oral statements are accepted.
Who Bears the Cost
- Litigators who fail to preserve issues — counsel who do not timely request or properly specify controverted issues risk losing the opportunity to secure an adequate statement for appeal.
- Smaller firms and solo practitioners — shifting drafting to parties can impose extra post-trial workload and potential billing pressures on smaller practices without resources for quick turnaround.
- Court clerks and calendaring staff — the new compact sequence (requests, draft periods, objections, deemings) increases procedural tracking and service obligations for court staff.
- Judicial Council and rulemakers — the Council must draft and promulgate rules and forms, a resource and timing burden that will determine how smoothly courts implement the statute.
- Family-law litigants — the provision allowing shortened times in Family Code matters may compress timelines in emotionally and financially sensitive cases, creating pressure on counsel and courts.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is efficiency versus preservation: the bill reduces courts' drafting burden and focuses explanations where the parties say the dispute lies, but it also raises the risk that a narrower, party-driven process will leave some parties without a sufficiently detailed record for fair appellate review—especially when timelines are short, resources are limited, or courts do not timely rule on objections.
AB 515 attempts to balance efficiency and clarity by narrowing post-trial explanation to the controverted issues parties identify, but that structure raises predictable implementation tensions. First, shifting drafting to party-prepared proposals risks uneven quality: well-resourced litigants may produce polished drafts that shape the record, while under-resourced parties may struggle to produce useful proposed statements, leaving courts to fill gaps.
Second, the statutory mechanisms for objections and deeming—designed to create quick finality—could produce harsh results if courts do not rule on objections and the deeming rules automatically finalize statements. That places an administrative premium on timely judicial action or explicit case management orders.
Third, the oral-statement exception for short trials is practical but subjective in application: what constitutes a 'short' trial may vary by practice area, and reliance on oral statements transfers weight to the accuracy and completeness of the trial transcript. Finally, significant implementation detail is deferred to the Judicial Council.
The Council's approach to forms, timing rules, and templates will determine whether AB 515 simplifies practice or simply relocates complexity into local rules and operational choices, with uneven results across counties.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.