Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Harbour Vista v. HSBC Mortgage Services Inc.

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 19, 2011No. G044357Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

ARONSON, J., Concurring and Dissenting.

I concur with the majority’s conclusion the trial court prejudicially erred by entering a default judgment against defendant and appellant HSBC Mortgage Services Inc. As the majority explains, Code of Civil Procedure section 764.010 unmistakably prohibits entry of judgment by default in quiet title actions.1 Accordingly, I agree with my colleagues that we must reverse the default judgment and remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings.2

I dissent, however, from the majority’s conclusion that a defendant in default may present evidence or…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Foreman & Clark Corp. v. FallonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  2. People v. PietersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
  3. Gerhard v. StephensCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  4. United Community Church v. GarcinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
  5. Elkins v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API