Terrace Garden Apartments v. County of Alameda CA1/4
A139308
Cal. Ct. App.Aug 3, 2016Background
- Terrace Garden leased an apartment complex in 1996 with an option to purchase; it exercised the option in 2008. The County assessed change of ownership as of 2008; Terrace Garden contended the transaction was a financing lease and ownership changed in 1996.
- Administrative appeals upheld the County’s 2008 change-of-ownership finding; Assessment Appeals Board later reduced the 2008 valuation but did not change the change-of-ownership date.
- Terrace Garden sued in February 2012 but did not serve the complaint until October 5, 2012. The County filed a demurrer that it asserts was filed (and served) on November 5, 2012; court electronic/endorsement records briefly showed November 7, 2012.
- On November 7, 2012 the clerk entered default against the County; after discovering the file-stamp error the clerk corrected the filing date to November 5 and the trial court, on its own motion, set aside the entry of default as clerical error.
- The demurrer was heard January 10, 2013; Terrace Garden did not appear or oppose and the court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and other jurisdictional defects.
- Terrace Garden moved under Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b) more than four months later for relief from the order sustaining the demurrer; the trial court denied relief. Terrace Garden appealed and the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the clerk’s entry of default could be set aside because the County’s demurrer was timely filed (Nov. 5) despite a clerk endorsement showing Nov. 7 | Terrace Garden argued the demurrer was actually received late (Nov. 6) and the default should stand | County argued filings were timely (Nov. 5), clerk’s endorsement error was clerical, and the default was voidable/set aside | Court upheld trial court: substantial evidence supported Nov. 5 filing; entry of default was clerical error and properly set aside |
| Whether mandatory relief under § 473(b) requires vacatur of the order sustaining the demurrer | Terrace Garden contended it was entitled to relief under § 473(b) (mandatory provision) due to counsel’s mistake/confusion | County argued mandatory relief applies only to clerk defaults, default judgments, or dismissals from failure to oppose—not to a merits demurrer ruling | Court held mandatory § 473(b) did not apply: order sustaining demurrer is not a clerk-entered default/default judgment/dismissal within the mandatory provision |
| Whether discretionary relief under § 473(b) is required to set aside the demurrer ruling | Terrace Garden argued excusable neglect and procedural confusion justified discretionary relief | County argued lack of diligence, failure to file proposed pleadings, and no meritorious showing justified denial | Court affirmed denial: Terrace Garden unreasonably delayed >4 months, failed to file proposed responsive pleading, and did not demonstrate meritorious defense; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Mirvis v. Crowder, 32 Cal.App.4th 1684 (court clerk assurance can render a late filing timely)
- Rappleyea v. Campbell, 8 Cal.4th 975 (equitable relief where clerk misinformation caused untimely filing)
- Crews v. Willows Unified School Dist., 217 Cal.App.4th 1368 (appellate review: substantial-evidence standard for factual findings)
- Baske v. Burke, 125 Cal.App.3d 38 (default entered when responsive pleading untimely; relief doctrines)
- English v. Ikon Business Solutions, 94 Cal.App.4th 130 (scope of mandatory § 473(b): what constitutes a default judgment or dismissal)
- Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc., 89 Cal.App.4th 603 (distinguishing mandatory and discretionary relief under § 473(b))
- Tackett v. City of Huntington Beach, 22 Cal.App.4th 60 (mandatory § 473(b) effect of attorney declaration)