Sarkissian

Sarkissian v. Karamian CA2/4

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 25, 2015B255000California1,424 words

Opinion

Opinion

Manella, J.

INTRODUCTION

Hasmik Karamian appeals from an order denying her motion to vacate and set aside a default judgment. She contends the trial court erred in denying her motion on the ground that she failed to file an answer. We conclude that the trial court failed to properly exercise its discretion. Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the trial court to consider appellant’s motion to vacate and set aside the default judgment.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On July 7, 2010, respondent Gayane Sarkissian filed a complaint against appellant, alleging that appellant had purchased real property with funds provided by respondent’s late husband. The complaint alleged that the funds were community property, and sought return of the funds and other damages. The proof of service of the summons and complaint attested that appellant was served by substitute service. Susan S. Georgino declared under penalty of perjury that she served the documents at 1935 Alpha Road, #202, Glendale, California, 91208, on “Arkanian Dhik,” a co-occupant, 55-year-old, 5’8” Armenian male with black hair. Respondent sought a default judgment against appellant in the amount of $88,075. She obtained entry of default on October…

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.