Schuler v. Albright CA1/5

Filed 4/21/15 Schuler v. Albright CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

RHONDA M. SCHULER, Plaintiff and Respondent, A140870 v. RUSSELL B. ALBRIGHT, (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. FAM0109857) Defendant and Appellant.

Russell B. Albright (defendant) appeals from an order denying his motion to quash and to set aside a default and default judgment entered against him in a child support proceeding, arguing he was never served with the summons and complaint and never received actual notice in time to defend the action against him. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 473.5, 418.10, subd. (a)(1).)1 We affirm.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On April 30, 2010, the San Mateo County Department of Child Support Services (Department) received an interstate referral requesting that parentage and child support orders be established against defendant on behalf of Rhonda M. Schuler and her minor son. On that same date, Department mailed a case opening letter to defendant at 25 Horseshoe Court in Hillsborough, California, the address provided by the initiating jurisdiction.

1 Further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise indicated.

1

Department caseworkers have password-controlled access to the records of the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) for the purpose of locating individuals who owe child support. In May 2010, the DMV confirmed that defendant’s residential address on file with the DMV was 25 Horseshoe Court, that there had been no changes to defendant’s residential address since his driver’s license was first issued in 2005, and that no other residential addresses were reported in defendant’s DMV records. Also in May 2010, Department sent postal verification letters to the United States Postal Service to determine whether mail was delivered to defendant at 25 Horseshoe Court. The Postal Service verified that mail was delivered to defendant at a post office box in San Mateo, and that defendant reported his physical address to be 25 Horseshoe Court in Hillsborough. In June 2010, Department received a letter from Stanford Federal Credit Union indicating defendant had terminated his employment there in February 2009, and his last known address was 25 Horseshoe Court. On June 13, 2010, Department received a letter from defendant stating: “The information you have gathered is in error. I am disputing any child support claims from Rhonda Schuler. This dispute is based on the parentage of the child. No contact with Rhonda Schuler has been made in over seven years in accordance with the wishes of the parent.” No return address or telephone number was listed on the letter. On July 22, 2010, Department filed a complaint for child support and order to show cause under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) seeking child support, child care costs, and unreimbursed medical and dental expenses from defendant. Several unsuccessful attempts were made to personally serve defendant with the summons and complaint at 25 Horseshoe Court. On August 4, 2010, defendant’s mother and father answered the door and said defendant did not live there. Defendant’s father threatened to take legal action if the “system” did not stop sending people to their door, and defendant’s mother threatened to call the police if the process server did not leave. Following these unsuccessful efforts to personally serve defendant, Department reviewed other possible addresses for him and identified 2249 Armada Way in San Mateo, California, using a LexisNexis database. A postal verification letter was sent and on