California AB 2042 Rewrites How a Debt Collection Default Judgment Gets Undone

California AB 2042 Rewrites How a Debt Collection Default Judgment Gets Undone

Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 2042 on September 20, 2026. It confirms that a person sued by a debt buyer who never actually learned about the case may move to set aside the default judgment even when service of the summons was legally proper, and it settles how California's new proof of service rules apply from January 1, 2027.

Information last verified on September 22, 2026. This is a developing story; we update it as the record changes.

Jurisdiction scope: This article addresses California civil procedure and the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act. It does not address the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, default judgment procedure in other states, or bankruptcy.

What Happened

The Governor approved Assembly Bill 2042, authored by Assemblymember Kalra, on September 20, 2026, and it was filed with the Secretary of State the same day as Chapter 379 of the Statutes of 2026. The chaptered text describes it as "An act to amend Section 1788.61 of the Civil Code, and to amend Sections 417.10 and 473.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, relating to civil actions."

The problem the bill addresses is old and specific. A debt buyer sues. The summons is served in a way the law recognizes as valid, often by substituted service leaving papers with someone at an address and mailing a copy afterward. The defendant never finds out. No answer is filed, a default judgment is entered, and the first the person hears of any of it is a wage garnishment or a bank levy months or years later.

California already had a statute for that situation. Civil Code section 1788.61, part of the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act, lets a person move to set aside a debt buyer default when they did not receive actual notice in time to defend. What AB 2042 does is remove the argument that the statute is unavailable when service was technically correct.

What the Law Actually Says

The set-aside path for debt buyer defaults

As amended, Civil Code section 1788.61(a)(1) reads:

"Notwithstanding Section 473.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if service of a summons was lawfully effected but has not resulted in actual notice to a person in time to defend an action brought by a debt buyer and a default or default judgment has been entered against the person in the action, the person may serve and file a notice of motion and motion to set aside the default or default judgment and for leave to defend the action." Cal. Civ. Code sec. 1788.61(a)(1), as amended by Stats. 2026, ch. 379

The phrase doing the work is "was lawfully effected but has not resulted in actual notice." The Legislative Counsel's Digest describes the change as clarifying that a defendant who did not receive actual notice may move to set aside even if service was lawfully effected.

The timing rules are unchanged in structure. The motion must be served and filed within a reasonable time, and in no event later than the earlier of six years after entry of the default or default judgment, or 180 days after the first actual notice of the action. Identity theft and mistaken identity are carved out: there the limit is 180 days from first actual notice, and subdivision (d) makes the section apply regardless of when the default was entered, rather than only to defaults entered on or after January 1, 2010.

A person claiming identity theft must give the court either a Federal Trade Commission identity theft report or a police report for the specific debt associated with the judgment. A person claiming mistaken identity must provide documentation supporting that they are not the party named or did not incur the debt.

The motion has to be accompanied by an affidavit stating under oath that the lack of actual notice was not caused by the person's avoidance of service or inexcusable neglect, and by a copy of the answer, motion, or other pleading they propose to file. Subdivision (b) also provides that either party may introduce evidence, "including evidence relating to the process server who appears on the proof of service of the summons and complaint."

If the court finds the motion timely and finds the lack of notice was not caused by avoidance or inexcusable neglect, it may set aside the default on terms that are just and let the party defend. Where the validity of the judgment is not challenged, subdivision (c) lets the court choose a different remedy instead.

The burden shift in section 473.2

Code of Civil Procedure section 473.2 is the general provision, not limited to debt buyers. As amended it says a party that was not served in accordance with the service chapter may file a motion to set aside or vacate the default or default judgment and for leave to defend the action "or for dismissal as permitted by law." The addition of the dismissal option is one of the bill's clarifications.

The evidentiary structure is the more important part. Under subdivision (b)(1) the moving party must proffer evidence, through a sworn affidavit or otherwise, that service was not lawfully effected, and doing so rebuts the presumption of the facts stated in the process server's return. Subdivision (c) then places on the party seeking the default the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that service was lawful. Subdivision (d) requires the court to take evidence on the lawfulness of service and provides that it "shall not deny a reasonable request by either party to conduct a hearing and permit oral testimony."

Subdivisions (f) and (g) handle timing. The section applies to service attempted or completed on or after January 1, 2027, and nothing in it alters a court's existing authority to decide a motion under section 473, or otherwise to vacate a judgment, with respect to a proof of service filed before January 1, 2027.

What section 417.10 requires, and where it came from

This is the part most likely to be reported incorrectly, so it is worth stating plainly. The photograph and GPS requirement in Code of Civil Procedure section 417.10 was not created by AB 2042. The bill text amends section 417.10 "as added by Section 9 of Chapter 563 of the Statutes of 2025," and the Legislative Counsel's Digest characterizes AB 2042's changes to that section as nonsubstantive.

The requirement itself, operative January 1, 2027 by the terms of section 417.10(g), is that for service under sections 415.10, 415.20 or 415.45, the proof of service must include one or more photographs of the site of each effected or attempted service. Each photograph must carry a readable stamp that establishes and automatically records the date, time and GPS or equivalent coordinates. Where the site is a dwelling, at least one photograph must show the door, or the entrance if the door is not reasonably accessible, with a specific explanation of why it was not. The same rule applies to a place of business.

There are two escape valves. If no GPS, cellular or equivalent signal is available, the process server must provide a detailed statement explaining the lack of a readable stamp. If in the process server's reasonable judgment taking a photograph would compromise their safety, no photograph is required, but the server must document the service and explain in detail why. Photographs must be taken as closely as practicable to the time of service.

Section 473.2(b)(2), as amended by AB 2042, ties this together: if a process server files a return before the operative date, the absence of the section 417.10 photograph "shall not by itself render the proof of service unlawful or insufficient."

When It Takes Effect

AB 2042 carries no urgency clause, so it takes effect January 1, 2027, the same date section 417.10 becomes operative and the date from which section 473.2 applies to service attempted or completed.

Analysis: Why This Matters

The following is analysis from the Recording Law Editorial Team.

Default judgments are common in debt buyer litigation. That is not a scandal by itself; many defendants owe the money and do not contest it. The concern the Legislature has been circling for several sessions is narrower: the gap between service that satisfies the statute and service that actually tells a person they are being sued.

Substituted service is where that gap lives. Leaving papers with a competent adult at an address and mailing a copy is valid service. It is also, when the address is stale or the adult is a former roommate or a building manager, a procedure that reliably produces a judgment against someone who never knew. Section 1788.61 existed for exactly that person, and AB 2042's contribution is to foreclose the response that the statute cannot apply because nothing improper happened.

The burden allocation in section 473.2 is the quieter but more structural change. A process server's return has long carried a presumption of accuracy, which means the person contesting service starts behind. Under the amended section, a sworn proffer that service was not lawfully effected rebuts that presumption and moves the burden to the party that obtained the default. Pair that with subdivision (d)'s requirement that the court take evidence and not refuse a reasonable request for oral testimony, and with section 1788.61(b)'s express invitation to introduce evidence about the process server, and the practical picture is a legislature that expects these motions to be decided on a record rather than on the face of the return.

The photograph requirement deserves precision rather than enthusiasm. It arrives on January 1, 2027 from 2025 legislation, it carries a safety exception and a no-signal exception, and section 473.2(b)(2) expressly says its absence does not by itself invalidate an earlier proof of service. It is an evidentiary aid, not an automatic defense, and anyone describing it as a new AB 2042 mandate has the chain of authorship wrong.

For readers looking at the enforcement end rather than the judgment end, California's wage garnishment and collection rules and our guide to stopping a garnishment already in motion cover what happens after a judgment exists.

How This Affects You

If a California default judgment from a debt buyer surfaced without your ever having seen a lawsuit, the amended Civil Code section 1788.61 describes a path that does not depend on proving the process server did anything wrong. The deadlines matter more than almost anything else in the statute: the earlier of six years from entry or 180 days from first actual notice, with identity theft and mistaken identity on a 180-day clock from first actual notice and no outside six-year limit.

If your situation involves service rather than a debt buyer specifically, Code of Civil Procedure section 473.2 is the general provision, and from January 1, 2027 it governs service attempted or completed on or after that date.

These are descriptions of how the statutes are written, not advice about any particular judgment. Which provision applies, whether a deadline has run, and what evidence a court would want are questions that turn on the specific case file.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. It covers California law and reflects sources verified on September 22, 2026. Laws change and this story is developing; consult a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction about your specific situation.

Related articles

• California debt collection laws: garnishment and the statute of limitations
• Debt collection laws by state
• How to stop wage garnishment
• Car repossession laws: what the repo man can and cannot do

---

Last updated: 2026-09-22. This is a developing story; details verified as of 2026-09-22.