Category Archives: Code of Civil Procedure

Mandatory Relief from Default: Attorney-Fault; C.C.P. 473(b)

Posted on by
Reply

  Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b), contains the attorney-fault provision for relief from default which provides “…the court shall, whenever an application for relief is made no more than six months after entry of judgment, is in proper form, and is accompanied by an attorney’s sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect, vacate any . . . resulting default judgment or dismissal entered against his or her client, unless the court finds that the default or dismissal was not in fact caused by the attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.”

  Relief under the statute is mandatory if the conditions are fulfilled. The motion is timely if filed within six months of the entry of default judgment or dismissal. Due diligence is not required. Nor is it necessary for the attorney attesting to mistake, inadvertence, surprise or neglect be attorney of record for the party requesting relief. The statute only requires the affidavit be executed by an attorney who represents the client and whose mistake, inadvertence, surprise or neglect in fact caused the client’s default or dismissal. Continue reading →

Related posts:

  1. Attorney-Client Privilege: Joint Client Exception
  2. Medical Malpractice Statute of Limitations Tolled by Insurance Code Section 11583
  3. Transmutation By Interspousal Transfer Grant Deed
  4. Bona Fide Lease Survives Foreclosure Under PTFA
  5. Unlawful Detainer: Relief from Forfeiture Available After Default Judgment

Notice of Damages: Required for Entry of Default in Action for Accounting?

Posted on by
Reply

  It is a fundamental concept of due process that a judgment against a defendant cannot be entered unless he was given proper notice and an opportunity to defend. Code of Civil Procedure section 580 therefore provides the relief granted to the plaintiff, if there is no answer, cannot exceed that demanded in the complaint or in a statement of damages as required by section 425.11. Section 425.11 refers to the required statement which must be served prior to entry of default in an action for personal injury or wrongful death. In those actions, the complaint must not allege a specific dollar amount of damages.The purpose of sections 580 and 425.11 is to guarantee defaulting parties adequate notice of the maximum judgment that may be assessed against them. Continue reading →

Related posts:

  1. Trustee’s Mistake in Opening Bid Amount Justified Refusal to Deliver Deed
  2. Suit Against Estate On Contract to Make Will Timely Pursuant to 1-Year Statute of Limitations
  3. Promissory Note Statute of Limitations: 4 or 6 Years?
  4. Suspended Corporation: Assignee Cannot Enforce Judgment
  5. Judges: Disqualification Not Required Where Judge Officiates at Wedding

Promissory Note Statute of Limitations: 4 or 6 Years?

Posted on by
2

  What is the statute of limitations on a promissory note? The statute of limitations for an action upon any contract, obligation or liability founded upon an instrument in writing is four years from breach per Code of Civil Procedure section 337. However, Commercial Code section 3118(a) provides a six-year statute of limitations for “an action to enforce the obligation of a party to pay a note payable at a definite time.” The period runs from “the due date or dates stated in the note.” Continue reading →

Related posts:

  1. Davis-Stirling: Partial Payments Reducing Assessments Must Be Accepted
  2. HELOC: Separate Statute of Limitations for Each Payment
  3. Void Judgment; Proof of Service Signed by Party
  4. CA Supremes Repudiate Common Law “Release Rule” Re Joint Tortfeasors
  5. “Trust Transfer Deed” Fails to Accomplish Transmutation

Renewed Motions for Mandatory Relief from Default Must Comply with C.C.P. 1008

Posted on by
Reply

   The California Supreme Court holds that Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, which imposes special requirements on renewed applications for orders a court has previously refused, governs renewed applications for mandatory relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b), for relief from default based on an attorney’s “sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.”

   Section 1008 requires a party filing a renewed application to submit an affidavit showing what “new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed” to justify the renewed application, and show diligence with a satisfactory explanation for not presenting the new or different information earlier. [See, Even Zohar Construction & Remodeling, Inc. v. Bellaire Townhouses, LLC.]

  Mr. Daymude consults with clients and accepts cases involving relief from default and default judgments, including those based upon an attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect. For other types of cases accepted, please scroll the Home and My Practice pages. If you are seeking a legal consultation or representation, call Michael Daymude at 818-971-9409.

Related posts:

  1. Notice of Damages: Required for Entry of Default in Action for Accounting?
  2. Medical Malpractice Statute of Limitations Tolled by Insurance Code Section 11583
  3. Bona Fide Lease Survives Foreclosure Under PTFA
  4. Transmutation By Interspousal Transfer Grant Deed
  5. Litigation Privilege Exception: Statement Concerning Third Party in Dissolution Proceedings

C.C.P 473(b) Provides Relief From Terminating Sanction

Posted on by
3

  The Fifth Appellate District opines in Rodriguez v. Brill that relief from a judgment of dismissal under the mandatory provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b), for inexcusable failures of plaintiff’s attorney, is available following the granting of a terminating sanction. Continue reading →

Related posts:

  1. Notice of Damages: Required for Entry of Default in Action for Accounting?
  2. Transmutation By Interspousal Transfer Grant Deed
  3. Attorney-Client Privilege: Joint Client Exception
  4. Bona Fide Lease Survives Foreclosure Under PTFA
  5. 580b Purchase Money Antideficiency Protection Applies to Short Sales

Medical Malpractice Statute of Limitations Tolled by Insurance Code Section 11583

Posted on by
Reply

  Determining when the statute of limitations expires is not always easy. This is particularly true in medical malpractice cases which are governed by two Code of Civil Procedure sections: 340.5 and 364. Additionally, other statutes may act to toll the applicable statute of limitations. One such statute is Insurance Code section 11583. It provides that the applicable statute of limitations is tolled when advance or partial payment is made to an injured and unrepresented person without notifying him of the applicable limitations period. Continue reading →

Related posts:

  1. CA Supremes Repudiate Common Law “Release Rule” Re Joint Tortfeasors
  2. “Trust Transfer Deed” Fails to Accomplish Transmutation
  3. Renewed Motions for Mandatory Relief from Default Must Comply with C.C.P. 1008
  4. HELOC: Separate Statute of Limitations for Each Payment
  5. Void Judgment; Proof of Service Signed by Party

Expert Witness Exchange: Service by Mail A Trap for Unwary

Posted on by
Reply

   The statutes governing expert witness discovery are part of the Civil Discovery Act at Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.010 et seq. The purposes of the discovery statutes are to assist the parties and the trier of fact in ascertaining the truth; to encourage settlement by educating the parties as to the strengths of their claims and defenses; to expedite and facilitate preparation and trial; to prevent delay; and to safeguard against surprise.

  Under the Act, so that the parties can prepare their cases for trial, a party may demand an exchange of expert witnesses. The exchange of expert witness information is governed by Code of Civil Procedure sections 2034.210-2034.310. An expert witness exchange is triggered by a timely written demand made by any party after the initial trial date is set pursuant to section 2034.220. Continue reading →

Related posts:

  1. 580b Purchase Money Antideficiency Protection Applies to Short Sales
  2. Teacher Entitled to Attorney’s Fees and Costs When Accusation Unilaterally Dismissed by District After Hearing Scheduled
  3. Trustee’s Mistake in Opening Bid Amount Justified Refusal to Deliver Deed
  4. Need to Stay Execution of a Money Judgment? Beware if Writ of Execution Issued
  5. Unlawful Detainer: No Jury Trial Waiver for Failure to Deposit Court Ordered Damages

Unlawful Detainer: Personal Service of Notice to Quit Must Be Attempted; Post Foreclosure Plaintiff Must Prove Duly Perfected Title

Posted on by
Reply

  In an unusual move, the California Supreme Court ordered publication of an opinion issued by the Santa Clara County Superior Court, Appellate Division, in an limited jurisdiction unlawful detainer case: Bank of New York Mellon v. Preciado. The decision specified two errors in the unlawful detainer proceedings: 1) the proofs of service of the 3-day notice failed to show that personal service was attempted; 2) the post foreclosure plaintiff failed to prove its title was duly perfected. Each defect required reversal of the judgment and a new and different judgment in favor of defendants. Continue reading →

Related posts:

  1. Anti-SLAPP Motion: Unavailable in Limited Civil Cases
  2. Bona Fide Lease Survives Foreclosure Under PTFA
  3. Suspended Corporation: Assignee Cannot Enforce Judgment
  4. Memorandum of Costs: 5-Day Extension Applies When Party Serves Notice of Entry by Mail
  5. Unlawful Detainer: No Jury Trial Waiver for Failure to Deposit Court Ordered Damages

Judges: Disqualification Not Required Where Judge Officiates at Wedding

Posted on by
Reply

  Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1 provides that a judge shall be disqualified if “a person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial.” Does the fact that a judge officiates at a wedding of a close relative of the adverse party’s attorney require disqualification?

  No, writes the court in Wechsler v. Superior Court citing California Supreme Court authority. When a judge has no personal or social relationship with the attorney and the judge’s only role at the wedding is that of an officiant, disclosure is required but disqualification is not mandated absent additional facts which clearly establish the appearance of bias. [Statutes relating to the disqualifications of judges can be found at Code of Civil Procedure sections 170-170.9.]

Related posts:

  1. Request for Dismissal May Constitute Appealable Final Judgment: Say What?
  2. Non-Aggrieved Party Lacks Standing to Appeal
  3. Elder Abuse: Absolute Immunity for Mandated Reporters
  4. Bright Line Extortion Exception to Anti-SLAPP Statute
  5. No Contest Clause Enforcement Determined Under Current Law

Dissolution of Marriage: Judgment Properly Entered Nunc Pro Tunc Following Death of Party

Posted on by
Reply

  If a party dies between the time the court orally grants a judgment of dissolution and the time the court enters a written judgment — does the court lose jurisdiction to enter judgment nunc pro tunc? No, writes the court in Marriage of Martin. Continue reading →

Related posts:

  1. Disputing Attorney Fees
  2. Davis-Stirling: Only Members Have a Right to Attend Meetings
  3. Answers to Your Tenants’ Rights Questions
  4. Elder Abuse: Absolute Immunity for Mandated Reporters
  5. Revival Validates Earlier Timely Notice of Appeal Filed When Corporate Powers Suspended