Rodriguez

Rodriguez v. Henard

Good Law
174 Cal. App. 4th 529·2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 858·94 Cal. Rptr. 3d 313
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 28, 2009F055200California3,400 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kane, J.

Defendants Neidin Henard and Joseph Henard appeal from the denial of their motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 473 to set aside the defaults and default judgment taken against them. Defendants contend the trial court should have granted the requested relief in light of an asserted “notice” defect concerning the default proceedings. Specifically, defendants stated in their declarations submitted in support of the motion that they never received a copy of plaintiffs’ request for entry of default or request for a default judgment, and that said default papers were mailed using an incorrect ZIP code. After considering all the declarations, the trial court concluded defendants were adequately apprised of the default proceedings and denied the motion. Defendants’ appeal followed. We will affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 26, 2007, plaintiffs, Jesus Rodriguez and Martha Rodriguez, filed their complaint against defendants, Neidin Henard and Joseph Henard, alleging that defendants committed fraud, conversion and breach of fiduciary duty. According to the complaint, plaintiffs experienced difficulty in making mortgage payments on their home in Watsonville,…

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.