Legal Opinion

Yeung v. Soos

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 16, 2004No. B165939PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

GRIGNON, J.

Defendant and appellant Emery Soos appeals from an order denying his motion to vacate a judgment following his default in this quiet title action brought by plaintiffs and respondents Timothy and Chuanpit Yeung. Defendant contends a default judgment in a quiet title action is void. We conclude the trial court erred when it entered a quiet title judgment utilizing normal default prove-up procedures, without an evidentiary hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 764.010.) However, we further conclude the judgment was not void and the motion to vacate was therefore untimely. We reject *579defe…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Dill v. Berquist Construction Co.California Court of Appeal · 1994
  2. Gray v. HallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
  3. Reher v. ReedCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
  4. Heidary v. YadollahiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
  5. Winter v. RiceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Cardinal Health 301, Inc. v. Tyco Electronics Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2008
  2. Harbour Vista v. HSBC Mortgage Services Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2011
  3. Nickell v. MatlockCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
  4. David S. Karton, a Law Corp. v. DoughertyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
  5. Harbour Vista v. HSBC Mortgage Services Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2011

8 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