Civil actions: setting aside default or default judgment

People can seek to reopen certain debt-buyer cases even when summons service technically complied with legal requirements but did not actually reach them in time. The law also clarifies procedures and evidence for challenging defective service in civil cases.

What the law does ​

• Allows a person facing a debt-buyer default or default judgment to seek relief when lawful service did not provide actual notice in time to defend.
• Requires these motions generally within six years of the default or judgment, or within 180 days after actual notice, whichever comes first.
• Allows identity-theft and mistaken-identity claims within 180 days after actual notice, with supporting reports or documentation.
• Beginning January 1, 2027, lets parties who were not lawfully served seek to set aside a default or judgment, defend the case, or seek dismissal.
• Places the burden on the party seeking the default or judgment to prove lawful service after the moving party offers evidence of defective service.
• Applies the 2027 service-challenge rules to service attempted or completed on or after January 1, 2027, while preserving courts’ existing authority over earlier proof-of-service filings.

Who it affects ​

• Consumers sued by debt buyers who receive a default or default judgment without actual notice in time to respond.
• People alleging identity theft or mistaken identity in connection with a debt judgment.
• Debt buyers and other civil litigants seeking defaults or default judgments.
• Process servers and parties contesting whether summons service was lawful.

Context ​

The bill retains January 1, 2027, documentation requirements for many types of personal, substitute, and posted service, including site photographs or safety-based explanations.

Breakdown ​

Defaults Despite Lawful Service ​

AB 2042 clarifies that a person sued by a buyer of consumer debt may ask the court to undo a default or default judgment if they did not actually learn about the case in time to defend it. This option remains available even when the summons was legally served.

Key takeaways

• The bill allows a defendant to seek to set aside a default or default judgment when they did not receive actual notice in time to respond.
• A defendant may make this request even if the summons was served in a legally valid way.
• The bill applies to debt enforcement cases brought by buyers of consumer debt.
• The existing deadlines for filing these requests are not changed by this provision.

Service of Process Rules ​

This part of AB 2042 makes only nonsubstantive, technical changes to provisions governing service of summonses and proof of service. It does not change the rules for substituted service, posting in unlawful detainer cases, reasonable diligence, or the documentation required for proof of service.

Key takeaways

• The bill does not alter when a summons may be served by leaving it with another adult and mailing a copy.
• The bill does not change the rules for posting a summons in an unlawful detainer case.
• The bill does not change the January 1, 2027 requirements concerning reasonable diligence before certain forms of service.
• The bill does not change the January 1, 2027 photo, date, time, location, GPS, or no-signal statement requirements for specified unlawful detainer proof-of-service forms.
• The changes are technical rather than substantive.

Service Challenges After 2027 ​

The bill clarifies that the new rules for challenging a default or default judgment based on improper service apply when service is attempted or completed on or after January 1, 2027. It also preserves courts’ current authority over requests for relief involving proofs of service filed before that date. The bill further confirms that an unserved party may seek dismissal when existing law allows it.

Key takeaways

• The rules shifting the burden to the party seeking a default apply to service attempted or completed on or after January 1, 2027.
• The bill does not change a court’s existing authority to decide requests for relief from judgments involving proofs of service filed before January 1, 2027.
• A party who was not served may still ask the court to dismiss the case when existing law permits dismissal.
• The bill clarifies the timing and scope of the service-related default relief provisions rather than creating a new dismissal right.