A Most Interesting Case

I am a pro per defendant in a civil case in Los Angeles Superior Court. The
pro per plaintiff is suing for equitable relief from a default judgment that
I obtained against him some years ago. His claim is that service was not legally
sufficient because I served by publication and misspelled his first name. The judgment was for $50,000.
I executed on the judgment only one time by purchasing a piece of his real
property for $100 at a sheriff's auction. The judgment has now expired. In
the event I lose this case I have these questions: 1. I assume a loss means
that my default judgment will be vacated, but what more can the judge do? 2. I assume that my original
action wherein I obtained the default judgment will resume at the point just
before I served my complaint? 3. Is the judge bound by California Code of Civil
Procedure 701.680 in this case? 4. How much latitude does the judge have in
fashioning a remedy beyond vacating my default judgment? (The plaintiff
wants his real property back and is not asking for monetary damages.) 5.
Where can I study more about the limits or lack thereof of judges in
fashioning equitable remedies? Thank You

[able1]

You should consider having counsel assist.

This area can get complicated.

But generally the other party is going to need very good reasons to set aside those previous actions. You cannot sleep on your rights.

How long have you had the property now?

I've had the property about four and one-half years.