California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Mullen v. Department of Real Estate, 204 Cal.App.3d 295, 251 Cal.Rptr. 12 (Cal. App. 1988):
"A direct attack on an otherwise final, valid judgment by way of an independent action to set it aside [citations] is permitted where it appears that the complaining party was fraudulently prevented from presenting his claim or defense in the prior action." (Kachig v. Boothe (1971) 22 Cal.App.3d 626, 632, 99 Cal.Rptr. 393.) This is known as extrinsic fraud. The rule is premised on the "important public policy that litigants be afforded a fair adversary proceeding in which fully to present their case. [Citation.]" (Ibid.) An example of extrinsic fraud occurs when an unsuccessful party is kept from appearing in the action by a false promise of a compromise. ( Id. at p. 633, 99 Cal.Rptr. 393.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.