Opinion
D039059.
5-12-2003
EDWIN C. ILIFF, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PAUL S. DUSTRUD, Defendant and Appellant; PETER DUSTRUD, Defendant and Respondent.
THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on April 17, 2003, be modified as follows:
1. On page 3, the sentence beginning on line 2 is modified as follows:
a. the phrase "and issue notices of" between the words "reinstate" and "renewal" is to be deleted from the sentence;
b. the phrase "deny the motion to vacate and to" is to be inserted between the words "to" and "reinstate";
c. the phrase "nunc pro tunc as of April 20, 2001" is to be added to the end of the sentence after the word "judgment," so the sentence reads:
We therefore reverse the order and direct the trial court to deny the motion to vacate and to reinstate renewal of the May 29, 1991 amended judgment nunc pro tunc as of April 20, 2001.
2. On page 5, in the first sentence, "683.171" is changed to "683.170," so the sentence reads:
On July 3, 2001, Peter moved under sections 683.170 and 473, subdivision (d) to set aside the renewal of the judgment on the ground the default judgment was void for improper service by publication.
3. At the end of the first sentence on page 5, ending "improper service by publication," add as footnote 2 the following footnote, which will require renumbering of all subsequent
2The record suggests, and Iliff states in his brief that Paul also filed papers in response to the notices of renewal. Those papers are not contained in the record before us. Because the trial courts order referred to a single motion to vacate renewal brought by both Peter and Paul, we will consider both to have been parties to the motion.
4. On page 9, the only sentence of the first full paragraph is modified as follows:
a. the phrase "and issue notices of" is to be deleted, and the phrase "the April 2001" is to be inserted, between the words "reinstate" and "renewal";
b. the phrase "to deny the motion to vacate and" is to be inserted between the words "directions" and "to," so the sentence reads:
Because we reverse the courts order vacating the renewed judgment with directions to deny the motion to vacate and to reinstate the April 2001 renewal of the May 1991 amended judgment, we need not address Iliffs contentions as to the propriety of its order as to the remaining defendants.
5. On page 10, the last sentence of the first full paragraph is modified as follows:
a. the phrase "issue notices of" is to be deleted, and the phrase "deny the motion to vacate and to reinstate the April 2001" is to be inserted between the words "to" and "renewal," so the sentence reads:
As indicated above, however, we have reversed that order, only to direct the superior court to deny the motion to vacate and to reinstate the April 2001 renewal of the May 1991 amended judgment, in which Paul is a judgment debtor.
6. On page 13, the first sentence of the disposition is modified as follows:
a. the phrase "and issue notice of" between the words "reinstate" and "renewal" is to be deleted;
b. the phrase "deny the motion to vacate and" is to be inserted between the words "court" and "reinstate";
c. the phrase "nunc pro tunc as of April 20, 2001" is to be added to the end of the sentence after the word "judgment," so the sentence reads:
The order is reversed and the matter remanded with directions that the trial court deny the motion to vacate and reinstate renewal of the May 29, 1991 amended judgment nunc pro tunc as of April 20, 2001.
There is no change in the judgment.
The petition for rehearing is denied.