Legal Opinion · Dissent

Lee v. Rich

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 30, 2016No. G051838Published

1Dissent

THOMPSON, J.,

Dissenting.—I respectfully dissent. “Citizens may not be dispossessed of their property by a ‘creditor’ executing on a judgment that is void ah initio for lack of personal jurisdiction. Deploying a void judgment to seize the property of someone who was never served with the lawsuit violates the constitutional guarantee that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law.” (Lang v. Roché (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 254, 257 [133 Cal.Rptr.3d 675] (Lang).) Therefore, the challenged order must be affirmed.

The trial court found the default judgment was void ah initio…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. CALIFORNIA LOGISTICS, INC. v. StateCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
  2. Carr v. KaminsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
  3. Transamerica Title Insurance v. HendrixCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
  4. Lang v. RochéCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API