A writ of error coram vobis will be issued by an appellate court (and the trial court may grant relief for error coram nobis) only on a showing that (1) some fact existed which, without any fault or negligence on the petitioner’s part, was not presented to the court at the trial on the merits, and which if presented would have prevented the rendition of the judgment, (2) the newly discovered fact does not go to the merits of the issues that were tried, and (3) the newly discovered facts were not known to and could not reasonably have been discovered earlier by the petitioner through the exercise of due diligence. Here, petitioner made that required showing with respect to the fact that it was only after judgment was entered that the trial judge filed his Form 700 financial disclosure form which revealed that he held stock worth more than $1,500 in AT&T, whose wholly owned subsidiary was a party to this case. Under CCP 170.1, ownership of an interest in a party worth more than $1,500 disqualifies the judge–and this decision holds that ownership of such an interest in the parent of a wholly owned subsidiary that is a party to the litigation falls within the statute’s meaning.