COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES v. SOTO

Reset A A Font size: Print

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 4, California.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Enrique Alvarez SOTO, Defendant and Respondent.

Civ. 65178.

Decided: October 19, 1982

John K. Van De Kamp, Dist. Atty., Donald J. Kaplan and Sterling S. Suga, Deputy Dist. Attys., for plaintiff and appellant. Wilbur F. Littlefield, Public Defender, Laurence M. Sarnoff, Marcia Galindo, and John Hamilton Scott, Deputy Public Defenders, for defendant and respondent.

The county appeals from an order vacating a judgment against defendant establishing paternity and ordering support.   We affirm the order.

On June 30, 1978, defendant executed an “agreement” wherein he admitted the paternity of an illegitimate child and agreed to the entry of a judgment against him declaring paternity and ordering him to pay $120 per month support.   A judgment based on that agreement was entered against him on September 15, 1978.   On December 30, 1980, he moved to vacate that judgment.   The motion was granted and the county has appealed.   We affirm.

Relying on County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (Burl D.) (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 988, 177 Cal.Rptr. 70, the county here, in the face of factual findings 1 that bring this case within the decision of County of Ventura v. Castro (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 462, 156 Cal.Rptr. 66, argues that the order was in error because Castro, under the case relied on, should not be applied retroactively to upset judgments entered prior to its pronouncement.

However, in County of Ventura v. Tillett (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 105, 183 Cal.Rptr. 741, we applied Castro to a similarly defective judgment, entered on January 26, 1979, four months prior to the date of Castro.   Hearing in Tillett was denied by the Supreme Court on September 22, 1982.   We follow the latest expression from the Supreme Court and, thus, conclude that the order now before us was correct.

The order is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The findings, included in the notice of Intended Decision, were as follows:  “On the merits of the motion, the Court finds that the Defendant did not knowingly, intelligently and understandingly waive his rights to notice and an opportunity to be heard in court on the questions of paternity and support as required by basic concepts of due process and County of Ventura v. Castro, supra.   However, the Court further finds that Defendant voluntarily enetered [sic] into the Agreement for Entry of Judgment filed September 15, 1978.”

KINGSLEY, Associate Justice.

WOODS, P.J., and AMERIAN, J., concur.