## Facts

- Hal Rappleyea sued Ken Campbell and other defendants, Arizona residents who represented themselves.
- Defendants were personally served on November 1, 1990 and had 30 days to file an answer.
- Defendants relied on an Arizona attorney to obtain filing-fee information from the superior court clerk’s office and submitted an answer with an $89 fee.
- The clerk rejected the filing because the correct fee for two defendants was $159; when resubmitted with the correct fee, the answer was filed on December 11, 1990, eight days late.
- On December 4, 1990, plaintiff applied for and obtained entry of default.
- After default, plaintiff’s counsel sent defendants a letter stating they could not seek relief based on “inadvertence, mistake, or excusable neglect,” discouraging them from promptly pursuing relief.
- The trial court later entered a default judgment for $200,240.39 (January 29, 1992).
- Defendants moved to set aside the default under Code of Civil Procedure section 473; the trial court denied relief (and later denied reconsideration after defendants obtained counsel), and the Court of Appeal affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to set aside the entry of default and default judgment when defendants’ failure to timely answer and seek prompt relief resulted from misinformation by the court clerk and a misstatement of law by plaintiff’s counsel.
2. Whether the combined misinformation constituted extrinsic mistake warranting equitable relief beyond the statutory limits of Code of Civil Procedure section 473.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal.
- The Court held the trial court abused its discretion in denying relief.
- The Court ordered the default and default judgment set aside so the case could proceed on the merits.

## Legal Principles

- Courts may grant equitable relief from a default and default judgment when extrinsic mistake prevents a party from obtaining a fair adversarial hearing.
- Extrinsic mistake may exist where external factors, including misinformation from court personnel and misleading statements by the opposing party, cause a default or impede timely pursuit of available remedies.
- Relief is not based on self-representation alone; the focus is whether the default resulted from circumstances external to the party’s litigation choices that effectively deprived the party of a fair opportunity to be heard.
- Although statutory relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473 is time-limited, equitable relief may be available when extrinsic mistake explains both the default and the failure to seek timely statutory relief, and when setting aside the default serves adjudication on the merits without undue prejudice.

## Conclusion

The California Supreme Court required the default and resulting judgment to be vacated because defendants were led into default by incorrect filing-fee information from the clerk and were then deterred from timely seeking relief by plaintiff’s counsel’s erroneous statement of law, amounting to extrinsic mistake and making denial of relief an abuse of discretion.


Rappleyea v. Campbell, 8 Cal. 4th 975 (Cal. 1994)