Hoehn

Cal. Capital Ins. Co. v. Hoehn

Good Law
Supreme Court of CaliforniaNovember 18, 2024S277510California7,466 words

Opinion

Opinion

Jenkins, J.

Opinion of the Court by Jenkins, J.

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d) (hereafter section 473(d)),1 provides in relevant part that a court “may . . . on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order.” Under this provision, a party may move to vacate a judgment on the ground of improper service of process. A line of decisions, followed by the Court of Appeal below, has held that such motions must be made within a “reasonable time” if the challenged judgment is not void on its face and its invalidity must be established by extrinsic evidence. To set the outer limit for what constitutes a reasonable time, courts have borrowed the two-year time limit of section 473.5, which applies where proper constructive service was given but the defendant did not receive actual notice.

1 All statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise indicated. 2 Section 473.5, subdivision (a) provides: “When service of a summons has not resulted in actual notice to a party in time to defend the action and a default or default judgment has been entered against him or her in the action, he or she may serve and file a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.