Molen

Molen v. Friedman

Good Law
64 Cal. App. 4th 1149·75 Cal. Rptr. 2d 651
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 15, 1998C026761, C027026California2,229 words

Opinion

Opinion

BLEASE, Acting Presiding Justice.

This case arises on consolidated appeals from a judgment in an action which collaterally attacks a default judgment [the collateral action] and from a new judgment in the action in which the default judgment was set aside [the default action].

The original default judgment awarded damages to respondents Morton and Marcy Friedman (the Friedmans) for breach of a commercial lease. The collateral action attacked the default judgment on the ground, inter alia, the damages awarded exceed the relief demanded in the complaint. The matter was tried to the court on the pleadings in the collateral action. In the collateral action the trial court set aside the default judgment and directed that, after a new hearing on damages, a new default judgment be entered in the default action.

Appellants, Michael and Drucilla Molen (the Molens), contend the trial court erred in directing entry of the new default judgment because the complaint in the original default action, measured by the well pleaded complaint doctrine, does not plead a cause of action for breach of a lease or a guarantee nor does it contain allegations required to sustain an award of damages for…

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.