When a trial court has fundamental jurisdiction but fails to act in the manner prescribed, what is the effect of such a ruling?

Even when a court has fundamental jurisdiction, however, the Constitution, a statute, or relevant case law may constrain the court to act only in a particular manner, or subject to certain limitations. (People v. Ford, supra, 61 Cal.4th at pp. 286-287.) When a trial court has fundamental jurisdiction but fails to act in the manner prescribed, it is said to have acted " 'in excess of its jurisdiction.' " (Id. at p. 287.) Because an ordinary act in excess of jurisdiction does not negate a court's fundamental jurisdiction to hear the matter altogether, such a ruling is treated as valid until set aside. (Ibid.) A party may be precluded from seeking to set aside such a ruling because of waiver, estoppel, or the passage

Page 16