Ramos v. Homeward Residential, Inc.
223 Cal. App. 4th 1434
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- AHMSI/Homeward designated CT Corporation System as agent for service in 2007; Ramos filed a complaint June 23, 2011 over foreclosure claims.
- Ramos attempted service at Irvine office, where a woman in charge refused to accept papers; no identification of the served person.
- A copy was mailed to AHMSI/Homeward but not to a specific officer or manager; later, an unsigned note listed a registered agent address.
- Default was entered March 23, 2012 and a $254,155 default judgment was issued July 3, 2012; levy on AHMSI/Homeward’s bank account occurred November 27, 2012.
- AHMSI/Homeward moved to set aside the default and judgment on January 14, 2013; the trial court granted relief and ordered Ramos to return funds; Ramos appealed.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding service was facially defective and not substantially complied, and that discretionary relief under CCP 473.5 was not abused.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service of process on a corporation was proper | Ramos: proper service attempted on corporation; substantial compliance | Homeward: service defective and/or not properly addressed to an authorized recipient | No proper service; judgment void for lack of valid service |
| Whether the facial defect in the judgment-roll requires setting aside the default | Ramos contends substantial compliance exists and defect cured | Homeward: facial defect plus lack of substantial compliance; relief appropriate | Facial defect shown; but substantial compliance lacking; vacatur affirmed |
| Whether discretionary relief under CCP 473.5 was warranted | Ramos argues no actual notice; relief not justified | Homeward shows lack of actual notice not due to avoidance; relief appropriate | No abuse of discretion; relief under 473.5 affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Dill v. Berquist Construction Co., 24 Cal.App.4th 1425 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (substantial compliance when actual receipt by proper person; strict compliance not required)
- Shamblin v. Brattain, 44 Cal.3d 474 (Cal. 1988) (abuse of discretion standard for equitable relief from judgments)
- Pasadena Med-Center Assocs. v. Superior Court, 9 Cal.3d 773 (Cal. 1973) (liberal construction of service of process; substantial compliance allowed)
- Olvera v. Olvera, 232 Cal.App.3d 32 (Cal. App. 1991) (evidence of excusable neglect; actual notice considerations)
- Cruz v. Fagor America, Inc., 146 Cal.App.4th 488 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (discussion of de novo review for facial defects on judgment-roll)