California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Anastos v. Lee, 118 Cal.App.4th 1314, 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 716 (Cal. App. 2004):
test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason. (Nestle v. City of Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 925, 101 Cal.Rptr. 568, 496 P.2d 480.)
Discretionary relief based upon a lack of actual notice under section 473.5 empowers a court to grant relief from a default judgment where a valid service of summons has not resulted in actual notice to a party in time to defend the action. (Tunis v. Barrow (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 1069, 1077-1078, 229 Cal.Rptr. 389; 473.5 subd. (a).) A party seeking relief under section 473.5 must provide an affidavit showing under oath that his or her lack of actual notice in time to defend was not caused by inexcusable neglect or avoidance of service. (Tunis v. Barrow, supra, 184 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1077-1078, 229 Cal.Rptr. 389; 473.5 subd. (b).)
[13 Cal.Rptr.3d 719]
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.