9
future consideration except the fact of compliance or
noncompliance with the terms of the first decree, that decree is
final, but where anything further in the nature of judicial action
on the part of the court is essential to a final determination of the
rights of the parties, the decree is interlocutory.”’” (Dana Point,
supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 5.)
No published cases have addressed the appealability of a
possession-only judgment entered after a tenant’s default in an
unlawful detainer proceeding in which the complaint sought
damages in addition to possession. Eshagian relies on Superior
Motels, supra, 195 Cal.App.3d at page 1047 and First Western
Development Corp. v. Superior Court (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 860,
863 (First Western) to support his contention that a possession-
only judgment in an unlawful detainer proceeding is
interlocutory and not appealable. Although we agree with
Eshagian that possession-only judgments are not appealable, the
cited cases are not persuasive authority because the courts
addressed this question only as dicta in recounting the history of
the cases.
In Superior Motels, the lessee of a commercial property
(Superior) filed an unlawful detainer action against various
entities that had sublet the premises. (Superior Motels, supra,
195 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1041-1044.) Following a court trial, the
trial court entered “an interlocutory judgment declaring
Superior’s right to possession” and ordered the defendants to
provide an accounting of accrued rents and profits during the
relevant time frame. (Id. at p. 1047.) The court then held an
evidentiary hearing on accounting issues and entered a final
judgment awarding damages to Superior. (Ibid.) Multiple
appeals from the judgment ensued. There was no question that