iLaw Dictionary			USAConstitution Law
						California			BankruptcyCode.US
						Law Dictionary			iBusiness Center.US
						Judgment-Default			United States Law.US

A Legal and Business Portal-Home

iLaw Dictionary
California
Law Dictionary
Judgment-Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment-Denial
(Anastos v. Lee)

Judgment-Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment-Denial
(Anastos v. Lee)

2.         Judgment Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment-Denial

            Defendants contend that the trial court abused its discretion in denying their motion to set aside the default judgment because they lacked actual notice of the lawsuit and the lack of notice was not caused by inexcusable neglect or avoidance of service.  We reject this contention.

            A motion to vacate a default and set aside a judgment (§ 473) "is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and in the absence of a clear showing of abuse . . . the exercise of that discretion will not be disturbed on appeal."  (Lint v. Chisholm (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 615, 619-620, quoting City Bank of San Diego v. Ramage (1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 570, 579.)  The appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason.  (Nestle v. City of Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 925.)

            Discretionary relief based upon a lack of actual notice under section 473.5 empowers a court to grant relief from a default judgment where a valid service of summons has not resulted in actual notice to a party in time to defend the action.  (Tunis v. Barrow (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 1069, 1077-1078; § 473.5 subd. (a).)  A party seeking relief under section 473.5 must provide an affidavit showing under oath that his or her lack of actual notice in time to defend was not caused by inexcusable neglect or avoidance of service.  (Tunis v. Barrow, supra, 184 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1077-1078; § 473.5 subd. (b).)

            Here, the defendants' motion to set aside the default judgment was supported by declarations from their counsel and from their investigator.  The trial court correctly ruled that the declaration of counsel failed to show that any inferred lack of notice was not caused by defendants' avoidance or inexcusable neglect.  Moreover, the declaration of counsel contained inadmissible hearsay and double hearsay statements, and thus lacked proper foundation, i.e. personal knowledge, to establish the requisite showing required under section 473.5, subdivision (b).  (See Floveyor Internat., Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 789, 796.)  The declaration of defendants' investigator had no bearing on the issue of inexcusable neglect or avoidance of service.  Absent a proper affidavit or declaration that the defendants' lack of actual notice was not caused by inexcusable neglect or avoidance of service, the trial court properly denied the defendants' motion.  There was no abuse of discretion.

DISPOSITION

            The judgment is affirmed.  Plaintiffs are awarded costs on appeal.

Anastos v. Lee D041904 Service of Statement of Damages by Publication       
 

May 26 2004

D041904 [PDF] [DOC]

Anastos v. Lee 5/26/04 CA4/1

California: Authoritative-Law Dictionary: Table of Contents    
Glossaries Directory Table of Contents   
Thesaurus Directory  
Dictionaries Directory Table of Contents

Thomas - Legislative Information on the Internet |Check Your Credit Score
Directory of Medical Dictionaries: Table of Contents | California Injury (Torts) Law
USA Entertainment.US | FederalCriminalProcedure.Com |
FederalCriminalProcedure.Com | iLaw Dictionary.Com |  Library of Congress
United States Law Consumer Law TITLE PAGE | USA Entertainment.US
iBusiness Center.US | United States Law: Constitutional Law: Constitutions of  The World: TITLE PAGE
California Contracts Law.Com | California Injury (Torts) Law
Phone Directories From Around the World New | California Law Revision Commission 
California Civil Procedure.Com | Federal Civil Procedure.Com