Scales v. Bradley CA4/1

Filed 10/28/20 Scales v. Bradley CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

ROOSEVELT J. SCALES et al., D075800

Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2017- 00046304- CU-OR-CTL ) LAWRENCE BRADLEY,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Richard E. L. Strauss, Judge. Affirmed. David Kay for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Gupta Evans and Associates, Ajay Gupta and Christopher S. Evans, for Defendant and Respondent. Roosevelt Scales and Joyce Otis (Scales and Otis together Appellants) appeal an order granting Lawrence Bradley’s motion to vacate and set aside judgment. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Appellants and Bradley purchased a residence located at 5358 Lenox Drive in San Diego, California on March 28, 1978. The grant deed specified a

one-third co-tenant ownership for each person. After Scales and Otis divorced, a grant deed was recorded on August 6, 1998 to specify that Scales, Otis, and Bradley each owned an undivided one-third interest in the property. Bradley lived at the property after it was purchased while Appellants never resided there. On December 4, 2017, Appellants brought a partition action to force a sale of the property. Bradley signed a notice and acknowledgement of receipt concerning the summons and complaint on December 28, 2017. The notice of acknowledgment of receipt was filed on January 3, 2018. In connection with the filing of the partition action, Appellants’ attorney served and filed a notice of pendency of action. Bradley signed a mail receipt after he received the notice of pendency of action on December 12, 2017. The receipt was returned to Appellants’ attorney. Bradley did not timely file an answer to the complaint in the partition action. Accordingly, on March 8, 2018, two months after service of the summons and complaint, Appellants filed a request to enter a default, and a default was entered. Bradley was sent the notice of default by mail. Some seven months later, on October 3, 2018, the superior court entered an interlocutory judgment of partition, direction that the house be sold. The court appointed a real estate broker to sell the house. The broker met with Bradley, his daughter, and his son-in-law at the house on October 18, 2018. On the broker’s request, Bradley signed a residential listing agreement, authorizing the broker to sell the house. Bradley also signed a disclosure regarding the real estate agency relationship. According to Bradley, he first became aware of the partition action sometime after meeting the broker on October 18, 2018. Subsequently, he