>TRACKMAN v.
KENNEY



















Filed 8/5/10









CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION



IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----




>

STEPHEN O. TRACKMAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MIKE KENNEY, Defendant and Respondent.

C061165 (Super. Ct. No. 99AS02554)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior
Court of Sacramento
County, Shelleyanne W. L. Chang, Judge. Reversed with directions.



James J. Falcone for Plaintiff and
Appellant.



Stuckey Law Offices, Brad Stuckey; Law
Offices of Daniel E. Garrison and Daniel E. Garrison for Defendant and
Respondent.







The trial court
granted defendant Mike Kenney's motion to vacate a default judgment entered in
favor of plaintiff Stephen O. Trackman, finding that the evidence > showed no actual service on
Kenney. Trackman appealed, and argues
the trial court mistakenly relied on evidence instead of determining whether the proof of service is void on its
face.

Kenney does not
defend the trial court's reasoning. As
we shall explain, because Kenney's motion was filed more than two years after
entry of judgment, the trial court's review was limited to the face of the
record, and therefore the trial court
erred by considering the evidence attached to Kenney's motion.

Kenney instead
argues that the proof of service is void on its face, because the name of the
person given the summons was stated as â€