Important Change to our 30-day Money Back Guarantee ************************************** Due to the increasing allegations of fraudulent purchase transactions involving documents specifically designated for the purposes of litigation in eviction and/or unlawful detainer proceedings, we have been forced into choosing whether to continue offering such documents at all to ANYONE, or to declare that they are NON-REFUNDABLE, and are no longer covered by the 30-day money-back guarantee. ************************************** Consequently we have decided that as of March 16, 2024 at 1:00 am, PDT any single document specifically listed in the Eviction Defense Collection is hereby NON-REFUNDABLE. To determine if one or more of your proposed documents are NON-REFUNDABLE you will need to review the list of single documents found within the description for the Eviction Defense Collection. ************************************** In the meantime, we will be updating the individual file listings for all such affected documents. ************************************** HOWEVER, YOU HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED!

Vacating a judgment in California for extrinsic fraud or mistake

by Stan Burman

Vacating a judgment in California for extrinsic fraud or mistake.

Vacating a judgment in California for extrinsic fraud or mistake is the topic of this blog post.

Vacating a judgment in California for extrinsic fraud or mistake requires the filing of a motion to vacate the judgment that is filed under the inherent equity power of the Court rather than any statutory authority. The motion may be made even after any time limitation specified in any California statute or statutes has expired.

Numerous decisions of the California Supreme Court have discussed equitable relief and the fact that in certain situations a court can set aside or modify a valid final judgment.

“A trial court has an inherent equity power under which, apart from statutory authority, it may grant relief from a default judgment obtained through extrinsic fraud or mistake. While the grounds for an equitable action to set aside a default judgment are commonly stated as being those of extrinsic fraud or mistake, the terms are given a very broad meaning which tends to encompass all circumstances that deprive an adversary of fair notice of hearing whether or not those circumstances would qualify as fraudulent or mistaken in the strict sense. Thus a false recital of service although not deliberate is treated as extrinsic fraud or mistake in the context of an equitable action to set aside a default judgment.

And the United States Supreme Court also ruled over 120 years ago, that in a case where there has not been a real contest in the trial or hearing of the case, the Court should vacate any judgment entered, and open the case for a new hearing.

"Where the unsuccessful party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his case, by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent, as by keeping him away from court, a false promise of a compromise; or where the defendant never had knowledge of the suit, being kept in ignorance by the acts of the plaintiff; or where an attorney fraudulently or without authority assumes to represent a party and connives at his defeat; or where the attorney regularly employed corruptly sells out his client's interest to the other side, these, and similar cases which show that there has never been a real contest in the trial or hearing of the case, are reasons for which a new suit may be sustained to set aside and annul the former judgment or decree, and open the case for a new and a fair hearing." United States v. Throckmorton (1878) 98 U.S. 61, 65-66.

The right to relief has also been extended to cases involving extrinsic mistake.

And extrinsic mistake has been found in many cases.

Relief is denied, however, if a party has been given notice of an action and has not been prevented from participating therein. In those cases he has had an opportunity to present his case to the court and to protect himself from mistake or from any fraud attempted by his adversary. Courts deny relief, when the fraud or mistake is "intrinsic"; that is, when it "goes to the merits of the prior proceedings, which should have been guarded against by the plaintiff at that time." .

Relief will also be denied when the complaining party has contributed to the fraud or mistake giving rise to the judgment thus obtained. "If the complainant was guilty of negligence in permitting the fraud to be practiced or the mistake to occur equity will deny relief." Wilson v. Wilson (1942) 55 Cal.App.2d 421, 427.

Various circumstances have been found to constitute extrinsic fraud.

It is settled that a wilful misstatement of the defendant's address in an affidavit for publication of summons is extrinsic fraud and justifies setting aside the judgment resulting from proceedings of which defendant did not have notice.

I want to stress that in order to obtain relief on the grounds of extrinsic fraud or mistake, the party seeking relief must show diligence in seeking relief once they have personal knowledge that a default or judgment has been entered against them. And they must also show a meritorious defense to the action filed against them, in other words they must show to the satisfaction of the Court that a different result is likely at any new hearing or trial.

Sample motion to vacate a judgment in California for extrinsic fraud or mistake for sale.

Attorneys or parties in California who would like to view a portion of a sample 10 page motion to vacate a California default judgment on the grounds of extrinsic fraud or mistake sold by the author can see below.

Sample Motion to Vacate Default Judgment for Extrinsic Fraud or Mistake in California by Stan Burman on Scribd

 

California law and motion document collection.

Attorneys or parties in California who would like more information on a California law and motion document collection containing over 90 sample documents for California including a sample motion to vacate a judgment for extrinsic fraud or mistake sold by the author can use the link shown below.

https://legaldocspro.myshopify.com/products/california-law-and-motion-document-collection

Over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation for sale.

To view more information on over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation visit: https://legaldocspro.myshopify.com/products

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and retired litigation paralegal that worked in California and Federal litigation from January 1995 through September 2017 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for sale.

Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit http://freeweeklylegalnewsletter.gr8.com/  for more information.

Follow Stan Burman on Twitter at:

https://twitter.com/legaldocspro

Like the Facebook page for Legaldocspro at:

https://www.facebook.com/LegalDocsPro/

DISCLAIMER:

Please note that the author of this blog post, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this blog post is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.

The materials and information contained in this blog post have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this blog post is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the author and any readers. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

 

 

Back to Blog from LegalDocsPro