Little v. Sanchez, 166 Cal. App. 3d 501 (1985)
- Citation
- Little v. Sanchez, 166 Cal. App. 3d 501 (1985)
- Parent Document
- Little v. Sanchez, 166 Cal. App. 3d 501 (1985)
- Jurisdiction
- California (state)
- Effective Date
- 1985-03-15
Other Sections in This Document (18)
- Little v. Sanchez, 166 Cal. App. 3d 501 (1985)
- Little v. Sanchez, 166 Cal. App. 3d 501 (1985)
- Little v. Sanchez, 166 Cal. App. 3d 501 (1985)
- Little v. Sanchez, 166 Cal. App. 3d 501 (1985)
- Little v. Sanchez, 166 Cal. App. 3d 501 (1985)
- Little v. Sanchez, 166 Cal. App. 3d 501 (1985)
- Little v. Sanchez, 166 Cal. App. 3d 501 (1985)
- Little v. Sanchez, 166 Cal. App. 3d 501 (1985)
- Little v. Sanchez, 166 Cal. App. 3d 501 (1985)
- Little v. Sanchez, 166 Cal. App. 3d 501 (1985)
- Little v. Sanchez, 166 Cal. App. 3d 501 (1985)
- Little v. Sanchez, 166 Cal. App. 3d 501 (1985)
- Little v. Sanchez, 166 Cal. App. 3d 501 (1985)
- Little v. Sanchez, 166 Cal. App. 3d 501 (1985)
- Little v. Sanchez, 166 Cal. App. 3d 501 (1985)
- Little v. Sanchez, 166 Cal. App. 3d 501 (1985)
- Little v. Sanchez, 166 Cal. App. 3d 501 (1985)
- Little v. Sanchez, 166 Cal. App. 3d 501 (1985)
Full Text
1,103 charsAny judgment not based upon a valid waiver of a debtor’s due process rights is voidable at any time. As observed in Cross v. Tustin (1951) *50537 Cal.2d 821, 825 [236 P.2d 142], “a court has inherent power to expunge a fraudulent record or set aside a decree procured by extrinsic fraud. As stated in United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61, 65-66 . . ., such action is justified in cases where an unsuccessful party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his case by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent, as by keeping him away from court or by a false promise of a compromise; or where the defendant had no knowledge of the suit by being kept in ignorance by acts of the plaintiff; or where an attorney fraudulently or without authority assumes to represent a party and connives at his defeat; or where the employed attorney corruptly sells out his client’s interest to the opponent. There are many instances in this state of the exercise of the power which is deemed not to derive from section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure and is not limited by any time period. [Citations.]”