Yeung

Yeung v. Soos

Good Law
119 Cal. App. 4th 576·14 Cal. Rptr. 3d 502·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 918·2004 Daily Journal DAR 7265·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5296
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 16, 2004No. B165939California2,099 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Grignon, J.

Defendant and appellant Emery Soos appeals from an order denying his motion to vacate a judgment following his default in this quiet title action brought by plaintiffs and respondents Timothy and Chuanpit Yeung. Defendant contends a default judgment in a quiet title action is void. We conclude the trial court erred when it entered a quiet title judgment utilizing normal default prove-up procedures, without an evidentiary hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 764.010.) However, we further conclude the judgment was not void and the motion to vacate was therefore untimely. We reject *579 defendant’s other challenges to the order. Accordingly, we affirm the order denying the motion to vacate.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Defendant acquired residential property in Manhattan Beach in 1975. 1 In 1994, defendant lost the property by nonjudicial foreclosure. The lender acquired title to the property by trustee’s deed. In that same year, plaintiffs acquired the property from the foreclosing lender by grant deed. Plaintiffs built a new home on the property and have resided in the home continuously since 1995. In 1999, defendant recorded against the property a Notice of Intent to…

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.