On September 5, a California appellate court reversed a lower court’s order that had dismissed an individual’s complaint seeking to vacate a default judgment for unpaid debt brought by a collection company. The plaintiff alleged he had never been properly served with the original summons and complaint in 2006, asserting he never “resided” at the address where the process server delivered the documents, instead delivering them to a “co-occupant.” The individual’s complaint included three equitable claims to set aside the default judgment and a separate claim under the state’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The appellate court found that the trial court erred by weighing the evidence when it determined that the plaintiff’s declaration was insufficient because it was uncorroborated. The court also held that, because the challenge to the default judgment was based on lack of service, the plaintiff was not required to establish a meritorious defense to prevail on his claims. The judgment was reversed, and the plaintiff was awarded costs on appeal.
[View source.]
