Does a motion to set aside a pretrial default against defendants need to be considered as a motion under section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure?

A separate point of plaintiffs--that the court erred in setting aside a pretrial default taken against defendants--has no merit. The default was taken on extremely technical grounds, i.e., an allegedly invalid extension of time granted by the court. The record shows no lack of diligence, no disregard of judicial process on the part of defendants. The trial court would have abused its discretion had it refused to set aside the default. Plaintiffs make much of the fact that the court informally recognized a motion in another form as one to set aside the default; that the court did not require defendants to support the motion with the formal papers enumerated in the third paragraph of section 473, Code of Civil Procedure. At this juncture plaintiffs ignore the opening provision of section 473, which confers broad equitable powers upon trial courts. If a motion attempts to set aside a default in some manner and it is not clear that it is made under section 473, it may be considered as though made under that section. (Taliaferro v. Taliaferro, 217 Cal.App.2d 211, 218--220, 31 Cal.Rptr. 690.) After reviewing the record we have concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it set aside the default and permitted defendants to answer.