Notice Of Entry Of Judgment California: Fill & Download for Free

If you mean the time to file a Notice of Appeal, in California that would be 60 days from Notice of Entry of Judgment, 180 days if the clerk does not send Notice of Entry.

No specific number of days but the court must mail it “promptly”. The law states “when the court renders judgment, the clerk shall promptly deliver or mail notice of entry of the judgment to the parties…”. (Law section).

It’s not especially unheard-of for a divorce decree (or any court order, really) to be vacated. It doesn’t happen often, but I’ve been involved in several cases where this relief was requested and granted.An order can be vacated for various reasons; the way these reasons are couched and presented varies widely from state to state,¹ but the most common grounds are clerical error (in which case an amended order usually follows), lack of jurisdiction, lack of initial process, fraud or misconduct on the part of the party obtaining the order, some other defect in the issuance or substance of the order, and newly-discovered evidence. An order can also be vacated if “in the interest of justice.” All of these things can happen in divorce cases as well as in other cases.Amendment and vacatur of judgments is usually a matter of discretion for the court. Typically there is also a period of time during which the court may grant reconsideration without the necessity of formally re-opening the case.The comment on the question indicates that the case in question was in Mississippi,² and that the defendant didn’t show up for a court date, at which the plaintiff also sought modification of child support. When the defendant found out about the action, she asked for the judgment to be set aside, and this relief was granted. It seems unlikely that the divorce action was dismissed; it was probably just re-opened. It’s possible that the request for reconsideration was timely made and the original “default” order never became final.The comment also indicates that the judge and defendant’s attorney were close family friends outside of court but that this wasn’t “disclosed” to the plaintiff. While I can’t say that this sort of relationship (aptly described in Ron Hunter’s answer as “incestuous”) couldn’t have been a factor—it’s especially plausible in a small bar where there aren’t very many attorneys—I don’t know that I have enough facts even to allege that the court actually erred in reopening the case (if it did in fact reopen the case).³Even if plaintiff’s attorney wasn’t found to be at fault via a failure of notice or something along those lines, “inadvertence” is pretty broad—if the party has a reasonable excuse for missing a hearing, courts tend to be fairly lenient in granting new hearings, because one of the factors considered is the relative prejudice to the parties. Being required to litigate a position in lieu of obtaining a default isn’t considered a form of prejudice.⁴ The fact that extra attorney fees were incurred is, most likely, going to be a minor factor at best, though a family court usually has equitable power to allocate attorney fees notwithstanding the “American Rule.”⁵Notes:¹ Some courts have adopted the grounds for vacatur that are provided in Fed.R.Civ.P. 60, to wit, (a) clerical error or (b):(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;(4) the judgment is void;(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or(6) any other reason that justifies relief.Others use a similar formulation, based on N.Y. C.P.L.R. 5015(a), to wit:1. excusable default, if such motion is made within one year after service of a copy of the judgment or order with written notice of its entry upon the moving party, or, if the moving party has entered the judgment or order, within one year after such entry;  or2. newly-discovered evidence which, if introduced at the trial, would probably have produced a different result and which could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under section 4404 ;  or3. fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party;  or4. lack of jurisdiction to render the judgment or order;  or5. reversal, modification or vacatur of a prior judgment or order upon which it is based.Pennsylvania has no equivalent to either of these rules, but adheres to the common-law notions of opening and striking judgment. A judgment can be opened after a showing of excusable neglect, inadvertence, fraud, or some factor extrinsic to the record that indicates that it is only fair to reopen the case. A judgment can be stricken for want of jurisdiction, or in the case of a default judgment, if a demurrer could have been sustained to the complaint. A petition to strike is not a substitute for an appeal, though. (In the specific context of divorce, there’s a limitation on either opening or striking the judgment, 23 Pa.C.S. § 3332.) Within the period allowed for reconsideration (thirty days), the court may amend the judgment sua sponte. 42 Pa.C.S. § 5505; Pa. R.C.P. No. 1930.2.California provides for “new trials” in CCP § 657, but with respect to divorce actions specifically in Family Code § 2122:The grounds and time limits for a motion to set aside a judgment, or any part or parts thereof, are governed by this section and shall be one of the following:(a) Actual fraud where the defrauded party was kept in ignorance or in some other manner was fraudulently prevented from fully participating in the proceeding. An action or motion based on fraud shall be brought within one year after the date on which the complaining party either did discover, or should have discovered, the fraud.(b) Perjury. An action or motion based on perjury in the preliminary or final declaration of disclosure, the waiver of the final declaration of disclosure, or in the current income and expense statement shall be brought within one year after the date on which the complaining party either did discover, or should have discovered, the perjury.(c) Duress. An action or motion based upon duress shall be brought within two years after the date of entry of judgment.(d) Mental incapacity. An action or motion based on mental incapacity shall be brought within two years after the date of entry of judgment.(e) As to stipulated or uncontested judgments or that part of a judgment stipulated to by the parties, mistake, either mutual or unilateral, whether mistake of law or mistake of fact. An action or motion based on mistake shall be brought within one year after the date of entry of judgment.(f) Failure to comply with the disclosure requirements of Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 2100). An action or motion based on failure to comply with the disclosure requirements shall be brought within one year after the date on which the complaining party either discovered, or should have discovered, the failure to comply.² https://www.quora.com/How-unheard-of-is-it-for-a-person-to-have-to-divorce-their-spouse-a-second-time-after-the-other-spouse-had-the-divorce-declared-null-and-void-Details-in-comment-section/comment/7196422³ Mississippi uses a “Federal Rules” model and its grounds are:(1) fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party;(2) accident or mistake;(3) newly discovered evidence …;(4) the judgment is void;(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; [or](6) any other reason justifying relief from the judgment.Miss. R.C.P. 60(b).⁴ Although this term also has a more technical meaning (see this answer), in this context it’s more or less synonymous with “undue burden.” The degree to which a party, or even more relevantly, perhaps, third parties, may have relied on the judgment or the process leading to it will correlate with the likelihood of its opening being found unduly prejudicial.⁵ The “American Rule” is the principle that attorney fees will not be added to the judgment or apportioned by the court in the absence of (1) a statute providing for the same or (2) vexatious conduct (this may include the presentation of claims whose invalidity would be apparent to a reasonable attorney) on the part of the loser of the suit. Contrast the “English Rule.” The rationale for the English Rule is that the winner of the case should be made whole, including expenses of litigation; the rationale for the American Rule is that access to the courts to resolve disputes should not be discouraged by the possibility of inflated judgments or of having to pay out on presenting an unsuccessful claim. The rationale for equitable apportionment in family cases (which is usually provided by statute as well) is a combination of these approaches.