A nunc pro tunc motion in California asks the court to correct a clerical error in one of its own orders or judgments and treat the correction as effective from the date the record was originally entered. The Latin phrase means “now for then.” You file it under Code of Civil Procedure Section 473(d), and it works only when the written record fails to match what the judge actually decided. Wrong date, misspelled name, missing term the judge announced in open court, a dollar figure transposed by the clerk — those are the kinds of things this motion fixes.
What This Motion Can and Cannot Fix
The scope is narrow on purpose. A nunc pro tunc order corrects clerical mistakes, not judicial ones. That distinction decides most of these motions.
A clerical error is any gap between what the court intended and what ended up on paper. The judge announced a ruling, and the written order or judgment records it incorrectly. A judicial error is different: the written order accurately reflects what the judge decided, and the complaint is that the decision itself was wrong. Applying the wrong legal standard, miscalculating damages, overlooking an argument — those are judicial errors, and the remedy is an appeal or a motion for reconsideration. California appellate courts have held that a trial court cannot use a nunc pro tunc order to disguise a change of mind as a clerical fix.1Justia Law. Morgan v State Board of Equalization
The practical test: is there something in the record — a transcript, a minute order, a tentative ruling — that shows the court intended one thing while the written order says another? If yes, the gap is clerical. If the written order faithfully reflects what the judge decided at the time, no nunc pro tunc order can rewrite it.
One other limit matters. The court cannot use this motion to create an order that was never actually made. California’s Supreme Court held that a nunc pro tunc entry cannot manufacture a ruling where none was given.2Stanford Law School. Whitley v Superior Court, 18 Cal 2d 75 Backdating fixes the record of a decision; it cannot substitute for a decision that never happened.
The Statutes to Cite
Two provisions authorize 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
The court’s broader inherent authority sits in Code of Civil Procedure Section 128(a)(8), which empowers every California court to amend and control its own process and orders to conform to law and justice.4California Legislative Information. California Code of Civil Procedure CCP 128 Cite Section 473(d) as your main authority; Section 128 is a useful fallback when the requested correction does not fit cleanly in the clerical box but still involves making the record reflect what happened.
The Four Documents You File
A complete motion package has four parts. Missing any of them can sink the filing before the court reaches the merits.
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 legal grounds.5Judicial Branch of California. California Rules of Court Rule 3.1110 – General Format Identify the specific judgment or order that contains the error, describe the correction, and cite CCP Section 473(d). The first page must also show the hearing date, time, department, and the hearing judge’s name if available.
Memorandum of Points and Authorities
The memorandum is the legal argument. Rule 3.1113 requires one for virtually all motions, and the court may treat its absence as an admission that the motion lacks merit.6Judicial Branch of California. California Rules of Court Rule 3.1113 – Memorandum Explain the clerical-versus-judicial distinction, cite Section 473(d) and the governing case law, and argue that the error in your case falls on the clerical side. The strongest memoranda point to specific record evidence showing what the court actually decided and contrast that with the written order.
Declaration With Exhibits
The declaration is the factual backbone, signed under penalty of perjury. Identify the exact error, explain when you discovered it, and confirm that the requested change only aligns the paperwork with what the court originally decided. Attach exhibits that prove the error: hearing transcripts, minute orders, the original unsigned draft, correspondence with the clerk. Concrete documentation is what wins these motions.
Proposed Order
Draft the order you want the judge to sign. Include the exact correction language, the retroactive effective date, and a reference to the original judgment or order by filing date and case number. Simple and precise: “The judgment entered on [date] is hereby corrected nunc pro tunc to reflect [specific correction].”
Filing Fee and Fee Waiver
The filing fee for a noticed motion in California superior court is $60 as of January 2026.7Judicial Branch of California. Superior Court of California Statewide Civil Fee Schedule Effective 01-01-2026 If you cannot afford it, request a fee waiver at the time you file. Eligibility is based on receipt of certain public benefits, income below a set threshold, or lack of enough income to cover basic needs and court costs.8California Courts. Ask for a Fee Waiver
Service and Timing
After filing, serve the complete motion package on all other parties or their attorneys. California law requires service at least 16 court days before the hearing. Add five calendar days for mail service within California, ten for mail service elsewhere in 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 must be filed 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 can drop the motion off calendar.
What the Hearing Looks Like
Well-documented motions often go through on the papers. If the discrepancy between the court’s actual decision and the written record is clear, and no one opposes, the hearing itself can be brief. The judge reviews the declaration and exhibits, confirms the error is clerical, and signs the proposed order.
If the other side opposes, expect the argument to focus on whether the error is really clerical or actually judicial. Come prepared to walk the judge through specific record evidence — transcripts, minute orders, tentative rulings — that shows the court’s intent at the time differed from the written order. Without that evidence, the court has little basis to grant the correction.
Divorce Judgments Have Their Own Rule
California Family Code Section 2346 creates a specific nunc pro tunc mechanism for dissolution judgments. When the court determines that a dissolution should have been granted but the judgment was never properly signed, filed, or entered because of mistake, negligence, or inadvertence, the court can enter it retroactively as of the date it should have been entered.11California Legislative Information. California Family Code FAM 2346
The entry date matters in divorce because it determines when the marriage legally ends, which affects remarriage eligibility, property rights, and tax filing status. Section 2346 cannot backdate a judgment to a date before the trial, before an uncontested judgment hearing, or before the application for judgment was submitted.
Why Courts Deny These Motions
- The error is judicial, not clerical. The written order accurately captures what the judge decided at the time, even if the judge now sees it differently. Appeal or reconsideration is the right path, not this motion.
- No record evidence of the court’s original intent. Without a transcript, minute order, or comparable documentation showing the court meant something different from the written order, there is no evidentiary foundation for the correction.
- The motion tries to create an order that was never made. When a jurisdictional deadline passed without the court acting, retroactive correction cannot cure the default.2Stanford Law School. Whitley v Superior Court, 18 Cal 2d 75
- The correction would substantively change another party’s rights under the judgment. Courts grow skeptical that a change is truly clerical when it shifts what someone is entitled to.
- Procedural defects. Missing the service deadline, filing no memorandum of points and authorities, or submitting a thin declaration can each independently defeat the motion.
The motions that succeed are the ones where the error is obvious on the face of the record. When a hearing transcript says one thing and the written order says another, the court has a clean basis to act. When the only evidence is the moving party’s claim about what the judge “meant,” courts are reluctant to step in.