Reference  ·  November 14, 2026

California AB 747: New Service and Default Rules for 2027

The short answer

On January 1, 2027, changes to the Code of Civil Procedure become operative that will affect anyone who sues, or is sued, over real property. The bill is AB 747, the Service of Process Accountability, Reform and Equity Act, or SPARE Act (Stats. 2025, ch. 563), signed October 10, 2025. A follow-up bill, AB 2042 (Stats. 2026, ch. 379), signed September 20, 2026, adjusted the new vacatur procedure before it became operative. This article describes the law as of November 14, 2026. Starting January 1, 2027:

• Substituted service and posting will have a defined diligence showing: personal delivery attempted "in good faith, on at least three occasions on three different days at three different times." (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 415.20, subd. (b)(2), 415.45, subd. (d)(1), as operative Jan. 1, 2027.)
• Proofs of service will need photographs of the site of each effected or attempted service, stamped with date, time and GPS, for personal service, substituted service and unlawful detainer posting. (§ 417.10, subd. (a)(1).)
• The clerk will not enter default without proof of service of the summons. (§ 585, subd. (b).)
• For service attempted or completed on or after January 1, 2027, the party who took the default bears the burden. Under section 473.2, once a defendant proffers evidence that service was not lawful, the party seeking the default must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it was.
• No statutory time limit on a motion to vacate a default judgment void for lack of proper service. (§ 473, subd. (e).)
• Eviction complaints must plead the date, time and location of service of the termination notice. (§ 1166, subd. (a)(5).)

Below is each change and what it means for the cases our contract disputes and quiet title and partition practices handle.

What changes for substituted service and posting on January 1, 2027?

The current rule: "reasonable diligence," undefined

Substituted service on an individual is allowed only when the summons "cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered." (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20, subd. (b).) The statute has never defined the phrase. In Ellard v. Conway (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 540, 545, the court acknowledged, quoting earlier authority, that "[o]rdinarily" two or three attempts "at a proper place" should suffice, then held one attempt at a former residence, plus a forwarding-address check, enough because more attempts there would have been futile. AB 747 will narrow that flexibility.

The new rule: three attempts, three days, three times

As operative January 1, 2027, section 415.20, subdivision (b)(2), reads:

"For purposes of this subdivision, a party shows reasonable diligence by attempting personal delivery of the summons and complaint, in good faith, on at least three occasions on three different days at three different times."

Section 415.45, subdivision (d)(1), uses the same language "[f]or purposes of this section," which governs service of an unlawful detainer summons by posting. Subdivision (d)(2) adds that at least one attempt must be at the dwelling place or usual place of abode of the person to be served, if known or determinable with reasonable effort, with exceptions for commercial real property and Safe at Home participants. Posting service is still complete on the 10th day after posting and mailing (§ 415.45, subd. (c)), and substituted service on the 10th day after mailing (§ 415.20, subd. (b)(1)).

Whether a court could still find diligence on fewer attempts in a futility situation like Ellard is not something the text answers; plan on three. There is one express exception: section 415.20, subdivision (c), allows service "on the first delivery attempt" with a commercial mail receiving agency "if the only address reasonably known for the person to be served is a private mailbox" obtained through one. And the rule governs individuals; substituted service on entities at the office (subd. (a)) has no diligence requirement.

Photographs on the proof of service

As operative January 1, 2027, when the summons is served under section 415.10 (personal delivery), 415.20 (substituted service) or 415.45 (posting), "the proof of service shall include one or more photographs of the site of each effected or attempted service of the summons and complaint." (§ 417.10, subd. (a)(1).) Each must carry "a readable stamp that establishes and automatically records the date, time, and global positioning system (GPS) or equivalent coordinates" of the service or attempt. (Subd. (a)(1)(A).) The process server must take the photograph "as closely as practicable to the time of effecting or attempting service." (Subd. (a)(5).) At a dwelling or business, for each attempt, one photograph must show the door or, if the door is not reasonably accessible, the entrance, with an explanation. (Subd. (a)(2).) Exceptions, each requiring a detailed statement, cover a missing GPS signal, which excuses the stamp, and a safety risk to the server, which excuses the photograph. (Subds. (a)(1)(B), (a)(4).) Service by mail and publication are not covered.

The Judicial Council approved implementing rules and forms at its October 16, 2026 meeting (items 26-132 and 26-133), effective January 1, 2027, including a revised POS-010 with a photo item and a new optional Declaration of Diligence, POS-012. The minutes were still in draft and the final forms had not been posted as of this writing.

How does the new law change entry of default and the burden of proving service?

The clerk's entry of default

Section 585, subdivision (b), governs "other actions," those outside subdivision (a)'s contract or judgment actions for money or damages only, including quiet title and partition. Until January 1, 2027, the clerk enters default on the plaintiff's written application if the defendant "has been served." As operative January 1, 2027, the clerk will also need "proof of service of the summons." Quiet title plaintiffs face a stricter rule regardless: under section 764.010 the court "shall not enter judgment by default but shall in all cases require evidence of plaintiff's title."

The new section 473.2 motion

"[A] default judgment entered against a defendant who was not served with a summons in the manner prescribed by statute is void." (Ellard, supra, 94 Cal.App.4th at p. 544, quoting Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1444.) Under Evidence Code section 647, a registered process server's return "establishes a presumption, affecting the burden of producing evidence, of the facts stated in the return."

Section 473.2, as amended by AB 2042, will restructure that contest for service attempted or completed on or after January 1, 2027:

1. A party "that was not served with a summons and complaint in accordance with this chapter" may move to set aside or vacate the default or default judgment "and for leave to defend the action or for dismissal as permitted by law." (Subd. (a).)
2. The movant "shall proffer evidence, through a sworn affidavit or otherwise, that service was not lawfully effected," which "rebuts a presumption of the facts stated in the process server's return." (Subd. (b)(1).)
3. Then "the party seeking a default or default judgment has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that service of the summons and complaint was lawful." (Subd. (c).)
4. The court "shall take evidence" and "shall not deny a reasonable request by either party to conduct a hearing and permit oral testimony." (Subd. (d).) The section "does not limit any other remedies available under law." (Subd. (e).)

The section states no deadline for the motion. This is where the photographs matter: stamped door photographs for each attempt are the evidence a plaintiff will need when the burden shifts.

What AB 2042 changed

As enacted, AB 747 would have let a non-served party move to vacate "or to move for dismissal." The Assembly floor analysis of AB 2042 (Concurrence in Senate Amendments) reported stakeholder concern that the act could suggest that parties "could seek dismissal of a case for improper service alone, which is contrary to the author's original intent." The chaptered text now says "for dismissal as permitted by law." Defective service is a reason to set aside the default, not by itself a reason to end the lawsuit.

AB 2042 also rewrote the timing. Subdivision (f) now provides: "This section shall apply to service attempted or completed on or after January 1, 2027." Because substituted service and posting complete 10 days after mailing, service begun in late December 2026 can be completed in January 2027 and fall within section 473.2. Subdivision (g) preserves "a court's existing authority" over a motion under section 473, "or otherwise to vacate or set aside a judgment, with respect to a proof of service filed before January 1, 2027." For service attempted and completed before January 1, 2027, a challenge proceeds under section 473, subdivision (d), the case law and, from January 1, 2027, subdivision (e).

The other changes simply become operative January 1, 2027, with no general transition rule. The statute does not say, for example, whether a proof of service filed in January 2027 for a December 2026 service needs photographs. When in doubt, comply with the new rules.

Can a default judgment still be attacked years later?

Yes. "Lack of personal jurisdiction renders a judgment (or default) void, and the default may be directly challenged at any time." (Strathvale Holdings v. E.B.H. (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1241, 1250.)

The complication was that some Court of Appeal decisions borrowed section 473.5's two-year outer limit for section 473, subdivision (d), motions that depended on extrinsic evidence. The Supreme Court ended that in California Capital Ins. Co. v. Hoehn (2024) 17 Cal.5th 207: "We hold that a section 473(d) motion to vacate a judgment that is void for lack of proper service is not subject to the judicially imposed two-year limitation." (Id. at p. 225.) It disapproved Rogers v. Silverman (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 1114 "and its progeny." (Hoehn, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 226.) Hoehn left open whether a defendant must act with reasonable diligence after learning of the judgment; some Court of Appeal decisions have required it and others have doubted it. (Id. at p. 225, fn. 11.)

AB 747 adds section 473, subdivision (e), operative January 1, 2027: "Notwithstanding any other requirements of this section, a party to an action may bring a motion to vacate a default judgment that is void for lack of proper service at any time after entry of the judgment." It has no service-date trigger, so it appears available from January 1, 2027 for earlier service too.

Section 473.5 keeps its deadline

Section 473.5 is for a defendant who was validly served but never learned of the case in time. As operative January 1, 2027, it will apply "[w]hen service of a summons was lawfully effected but has not resulted in actual notice to a party in time to defend the action." The deadline is unchanged and strict: within a reasonable time, "but in no event exceeding the earlier of: (i) two years after entry of a default judgment against the party; or (ii) 180 days after service on the party of a written notice that the default or default judgment has been entered." (§ 473.5, subd. (a).)

What do landlords and property litigants need to change?

Unlawful detainer complaints

Section 1166 already requires an unlawful detainer complaint to "[s]tate specifically the method used to serve the defendant with the notice or notices of termination." As operative January 1, 2027, subdivision (a)(5) adds "the date, time, and location of effected service of the termination notice," a requirement the statute says may be satisfied on the Judicial Council form complaint or by attaching a proof of service. The Judicial Council's October 16, 2026 action revises form UD-100, effective January 1, 2027, to add date, time and address fields for service of the notice.

Whoever serves the notice should record the date, time and address at the moment of service. For the notice itself, see our article on the one-year deadline for a three-day notice.

Quiet title, partition and judicial foreclosure

AB 747 does not amend the quiet title statutes or section 415.50 on publication. Publication orders still issue under section 763.010, subdivision (b), and proof of publication needs no photographs. The three-attempt definition applies by its terms only to substituted service and unlawful detainer posting, but a court weighing a publication affidavit may look to it. Defendants served personally or by substituted service will need photographed proofs of service.

A void default judgment can also affect later buyers. In OC Interior Services, LLC v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 1318, a default judgment purporting to cancel a lender's deed of trust was set aside as void for defective service, and the court held: "We conclude that a void judgment in the chain of title has the effect of nullifying a subsequent transfer, including a transfer to a purported bona fide purchaser." (Id. at p. 1335.) The court noted that action "sought cancellation of an instrument, not to quiet title." (Id. at p. 1334, fn. 6.) A judgment that actually quiets title is different: section 764.060 protects a purchaser or encumbrancer for value who relied on it "without knowledge of any defects or irregularities in the judgment or the proceedings." (See Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Pyle (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 513, 524-526 [declining to apply § 764.060 to a judgment that did not quiet title].) Our article on how a quiet title action works covers that protection.

Partition and judicial foreclosure defendants are served and defaulted under the same rules, and section 473.2 reaches those defaults too when service was attempted or completed on or after January 1, 2027.

What to do before January 1, 2027

1. Plaintiffs: talk to your process server now about stamped photographs and logging attempts on three different days and times.
2. Landlords: change the notice-service routine. Record the date, time, address and method when a termination notice is served, and use the 2027 revisions of UD-100, SUM-130, POS-010 and CIV-100 once posted.
3. Anyone with a default judgment: read the proof of service. If service was attempted and completed before January 1, 2027, a challenge proceeds under section 473, subdivision (d), Hoehn and, from January 1, 2027, subdivision (e). If service was attempted or completed on or after that date, section 473.2 is also available, without limiting other remedies. If you were served but did not know, section 473.5's limits apply.
4. Buyers and lenders relying on a judgment that cancelled a deed of trust or other instrument: have the service file reviewed before closing. Under OC Interior Services, a void judgment of that kind nullifies a later transfer, even to a purported bona fide purchaser. For a judgment that quiets title, section 764.060 protects a purchaser or encumbrancer for value who relied on it without knowledge of defects.

Common questions

This article is general information about California law, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Statutes and case law change, and how they apply depends on the specific facts. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Robert B. Mobasseri, State Bar No. 193193, ROMO Law Group, Encino, California.