A California nunc pro tunc motion asks the court to correct a clerical mistake in a judgment or order so the written record matches what the judge actually decided, with the fix treated as effective on the original date. The Latin phrase means “now for then.” You use it when a date is wrong, a name is misspelled, a dollar figure is transposed, or a term the judge announced in open court was left out of the written order. You do not use it to change what the court decided.
What This Motion Can and Cannot Fix
The scope is narrow on purpose. A nunc pro tunc order corrects clerical errors, meaning any gap between what the judge decided and what ended up on paper. Typos in party names, incorrect hearing dates, missing provisions the judge announced from the bench, a clerk’s transcription mistake: all clerical. The judge got the decision right; the paperwork didn’t.
A judicial error is different. If the judge applied the wrong legal standard, miscalculated damages, or overlooked an argument, the written order faithfully reflects what the judge decided even though the decision itself was flawed. That is not fixable through this motion. California appellate courts have held that a trial court cannot use a nunc pro tunc order to disguise a change in its legal conclusions as a clerical fix.1Justia Law. Morgan v State Board of Equalization The remedy for a judicial error is an appeal or a motion for reconsideration.
The court also cannot use a nunc pro tunc order to create a ruling it never actually made. The California Supreme Court has been clear: a nunc pro tunc entry cannot manufacture an order where none was given.2Stanford Law School. Whitley v Superior Court, 18 Cal 2d 75 If a jurisdictional deadline passed without the court acting, retroactive correction cannot cure that.
The practical test judges apply: does something in the record (a transcript, minute order, or tentative ruling) show the court intended one thing while the written order says another? If yes, the gap is clerical. If the written order accurately captures the decision and the judge has since changed their mind, it isn’t.
Legal Authority
Two statutes support the motion. The primary one is Code of Civil Procedure Section 473(d), which lets the court correct clerical mistakes in its judgments or orders so they conform to what was actually directed. The court can act on its own or on a party’s motion, and there is no time limit.3California Legislative Information. California Code of Civil Procedure CCP 473
Code of Civil Procedure Section 128(a)(8) gives every California court the broader inherent authority to amend and control its own process and orders to make them conform to law and justice.4California Legislative Information. California Code of Civil Procedure CCP 128 Section 473(d) is the usual cite; Section 128 sometimes backs up requests that don’t fit neatly into the clerical-mistake category.
The Four Documents You File
A complete motion includes a Notice of Motion, a Memorandum of Points and Authorities, a Declaration with supporting evidence, and a Proposed Order. Missing any of them can sink the motion. California Rules of Court require a supporting memorandum for virtually all motions, and the court may treat its absence as an admission that the motion has no merit.5Judicial Branch of California. California Rules of Court Rule 3.1113 – Memorandum
Notice of Motion
The notice tells the court and the other parties what you want. Under California Rules of Court Rule 3.1110, the opening paragraph must state the nature of the order sought and the grounds for it.6Judicial Branch of California. California Rules of Court Rule 3.1110 – General Format Identify the specific judgment or order containing the error, describe the correction, and cite CCP Section 473(d). The first page also needs the hearing date, time, location, and the hearing judge’s name if known.
Memorandum of Points and Authorities
This is your legal argument. Explain the clerical-versus-judicial distinction, cite the authorities, and show why your error is clerical. Keep it tight. The strongest memoranda point to specific record evidence (a transcript or minute order) that proves what the court actually decided, then set that against the written order to highlight the discrepancy.
Declaration
The declaration is your factual foundation. Sign it under penalty of perjury. Identify the specific error, say when you discovered it, and confirm the requested change only aligns the paperwork with what the court originally decided. Attach exhibits: hearing transcripts, minute orders, the unsigned draft, correspondence with the clerk’s office. The more documented the error, the easier the ruling.
Proposed Order
This is what the judge will sign. Include the exact correction language, specify the retroactive effective date, and reference the original judgment or order by filing date and case number. Simple is better: “The judgment entered on [date] is hereby corrected nunc pro tunc to reflect [specific correction].”
Filing Fee, Service, and Timing
A noticed motion in California superior court costs $60 as of January 2026.7Judicial Branch of California. Superior Court of California Statewide Civil Fee Schedule Effective 01-01-2026 If you can’t afford it, request a fee waiver when you file the motion.8California Courts. Ask for a Fee Waiver
After filing with the clerk, serve copies of the full package on every other party or their attorney. California law requires service at least 16 court days before the hearing. Add five calendar days for mail service within California, ten for mail outside California but within the United States, and two for overnight delivery or fax.9California Legislative Information. California Code of Civil Procedure CCP 1005
Then file a proof of service confirming every party received the papers. It’s due no later than five court days before the hearing.10Judicial Branch of California. California Rules of Court Rule 3.1300 – Time for Filing and Service of Motion Papers Miss this deadline and the court may take the motion off calendar.
What Happens at the Hearing
When the papers are solid and no one opposes, judges often rule on the written submissions. The hearing itself may be brief: the judge reviews your declaration and exhibits, confirms the error is clerical, and signs the proposed order.
Contested hearings get more substantive. The usual argument against the motion is that the error is judicial, not clerical, meaning you’re trying to change the decision rather than fix a transcription mistake. Come ready to point the judge to specific record evidence (transcripts, minute orders, tentative rulings) showing the court’s actual intent diverged from the written order. Without that evidence, the court has little to work with.
Nunc Pro Tunc in Divorce Cases
Family Code Section 2346 provides a specific mechanism for dissolution judgments. If the court determines a divorce should have been granted but the judgment was never properly signed, filed, or entered due to mistake, negligence, or inadvertence, the court can enter it retroactively as of the date it should have originally been entered.11California Legislative Information. California Family Code FAM 2346
The entry date matters because it determines when the marriage officially ends, which affects remarriage eligibility, property rights, and tax filing status. Section 2346 has a floor: the court cannot backdate the judgment to a date before trial, before an uncontested judgment hearing, or before the application for judgment was submitted.
Why These Motions Get Denied
- The error is judicial, not clerical. The written order accurately reflects what the judge decided at the time, even if the judge now sees the decision as wrong. A nunc pro tunc order is not a substitute for appeal or reconsideration.
- No record evidence of the court’s original intent. Without a transcript, minute order, or similar documentation showing the court meant something different from what the written order says, the motion has no evidentiary foundation.
- The motion tries to create a ruling that never happened. A court cannot backdate an order it never actually made.2Stanford Law School. Whitley v Superior Court, 18 Cal 2d 75
- The correction would alter another party’s rights under the judgment. When the fix substantively changes what someone else is entitled to, courts doubt the change is truly clerical.
- Procedural defects. Missing the service deadline, leaving out the memorandum of points and authorities, or filing a thin declaration can each sink the motion before the court reaches the merits.
The motions that succeed are the ones where the error is obvious on the face of the record. When a transcript says one thing and the written order says another, the court has a clean basis to act. When the only evidence of an error is your own assertion that the judge “meant” something else, courts are reluctant to intervene.