Ashby v. Harsh CA3

── Ashby v. Harsh CA3 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 29, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/29/26 Ashby v. Harsh CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Lassen) BREANNA ASHBY et al., C103529 Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Super. Ct. No. 2024- v. CV0076638) RICHARD HARSH, as Executor, etc., Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiffs Breanna Ashby and Julien Santa filed a quiet title action, claiming to have acquired title to certain real property in Lassen County through adverse possession. The complaint named as defendants the Estate of Richard Lisman (the Estate); an “in care of” agent, Richard Harsh; and numerous Does. When no defendants answered the complaint, default and default judgment were entered against the Estate and Harsh. A few months later, Harsh filed a motion to vacate the entry of default and to set aside the default judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b), asserting that he was the executor of the Estate and was never served with notice of the action.1 The trial court issued an order granting Harsh’s motion, and plaintiffs filed the present appeal. Finding no merit in plaintiffs’ challenges to the trial court’s decision, we affirm. 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. 1  BACKGROUND In October 2024, plaintiffs (proceeding in propria persona, as they do in this appeal) filed an action to quiet title under the doctrine of adverse possession. They claimed to have continuously, openly, and exclusively possessed certain real property in Lassen County that was formally owned by Richard Lisman, who had passed away some 20 years earlier. Plaintiffs attached various documents and declarations in support of the complaint. The accompanying proof of service reflected that a third party personally served the summons and complaint on defendants “Richard Lisman est. / Richard Harsh c/o” on October 24, 2024. On December 3, 2024, plaintiffs filed a request for entry of default, request for default judgment, and a declaration in support. The accompanying proof of service stated that a third party personally served Harsh with the documents. The trial court clerk entered the default of the Estate and Harsh that same day. About one week later, the trial court entered default judgment in favor of plaintiffs. In late February 2025, Harsh filed a motion under section 473, subdivision (b) to vacate the entry of default and to set aside the default judgment. Harsh identified himself as the stepfather of plaintiff Ashby and the executor of the Estate. He asserted as grounds for relief “complete surprise” regarding the filing and adjudication of the action, claiming that he was never served as stated in the proofs of service. In an accompanying declaration, Harsh averred that he “was simply not served and never acquired knowledge [of the claim or judgment] until January 12, 2025,” when he learned from a neighbor of the subject property that Ashby was “up to something regarding the property.” Harsh informed his counsel, and as further described in counsel’s own declaration, counsel went to the courthouse the next day to investigate. There, counsel obtained a copy of the file in the present action. Both counsel and Harsh claimed