Laserfiche WebLink
1 no notice is fi.ied, then within 180 days of the entry of <br /> 2 judgment. In this case, the Board does not know if a notice of <br /> 3 entry of judgment was filed. However, the Board was not a party <br /> 4 to this action, and thus it is not bound by the time limitations <br /> 5 of section 663a. (Aries Dev. Co. v. California Costal Zone <br /> 6 Conservation Com. (1975 ) 48 Cal .App. 3d 534 , 542 . ) <br /> 7 In Aries Dev. Co. , the court noted that a person who <br /> 8 was not made a party to an action but who was legally aggrieved <br /> 9 by the judgment, could become a party of record by moving to <br /> 10 vacate the judgment, citing a string of authorities . (Aries Dev. <br /> 11 Co. , supra, 48 Cal .App. 3d at 541. ) The court went on to hold <br /> 12 that the "time limit [of Code of Civil Procedure section 663a] <br /> 13 only applies to those who were parties of record when judgment <br /> 14 was entered. " (Id: at p. 542 . ) Therefore, this motion is timely <br /> 15 ifiled pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 663a . <br /> 16 V <br /> 17 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE BOARD OF <br /> EQUALIZATION HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO BRING <br /> 18THIS ACTION <br /> 19 - Both Aries Dev. Co. and Hy-Lond discuss the question of <br /> 20 whether the party bringing the motion had standing to do so. <br /> 21 Both cases discuss the fact that a person who is legally <br /> 22 aggrieved by a judgment may become a party of record by moving to <br /> 23 vacate the judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section <br /> 24 663 . (Hy-Lond, supra, 93 Cal.App. 3d at p. 745, Aries Dev. Co. , <br /> 25 supra, 48 Cal.App. 3d at p. 541 . ) The Aries court then goes on to <br /> 26 say that " [a] person whose rights or interests are injuriously <br /> 27 affected by the judgment is a person aggrieved. (citation <br /> 9 . <br />