TRACKMAN v. KENNEY
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html ><br /> <head><br /> <title>TRACKMAN v</title><br /> </head><br /> <body><br /> <div><br /> <br/><b<br /> >TRACKMAN v.<br /> KENNEY</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Filed 8/5/10<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b ><u> </u></b><br /> <br/><b ><u>CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION</u></b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>IN THE COURT OF APPEAL<br /> OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA<br /> <br/>THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT<br /> <br/>(Sacramento)<br /> <br/>----<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0<br /> ><br /> <tr ><br /> <td width=394 valign=top ><br /> <br/>STEPHEN O. TRACKMAN,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Plaintiff and Appellant,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> v.<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>MIKE KENNEY,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Defendant and Respondent.<br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> <td width=230 valign=top ><br /> <br/>C061165<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>(Super.<br /> Ct. No. 99AS02554)<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> </table><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior<br /> Court of Sacramento<br /> County, Shelleyanne W. L. Chang, Judge. Reversed with directions.<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> James J. Falcone for Plaintiff and<br /> Appellant.<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Stuckey Law Offices, Brad Stuckey; Law<br /> Offices of Daniel E. Garrison and Daniel E. Garrison for Defendant and<br /> Respondent.<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> The trial court<br /> granted defendant Mike Kenney's motion to vacate a default judgment entered in<br /> favor of plaintiff Stephen O. Trackman, finding that the evidence<i<br /> > </i>showed no actual service on<br /> Kenney. Trackman appealed, and argues<br /> the trial court mistakenly relied on evidence<i > </i>instead of determining whether the proof of service is void on its<br /> face. <br /> <br/> Kenney does not<br /> defend the trial court's reasoning. As<br /> we shall explain, because Kenney's motion was filed more than two years after<br /> entry of judgment, the trial court's review was limited to the face of the<br /> record,<i > </i>and therefore the trial court<br /> erred by considering the evidence attached to Kenney's motion. <br /> <br/> Kenney instead<br /> argues that the proof of service is void on its face, because the name of the<br /> person given the summons was stated as â€