Your Eviction Isn’t Over When You Win: What AB 747 and AB 2042 Mean for California Landlords

For decades, a California landlord who won an unlawful detainer could close the file and move on. That is changing. Two new laws, AB 747 and its cleanup bill AB 2042, make it far easier for a former tenant to come back years later, claim they were never properly served, and ask the court to throw out the judgment.

If that happens, the eviction you won can become an eviction you have to defend.

We recently watched an Apartment Owners Association webinar with two veteran process servers: Eric Ratliff of Attorney Service of San Dimas, who works Southern California, and John Healey, who serves in Alameda County. Between them they have close to a century of experience, and both own rental property. Below is a general explanation of the new laws and the practices they described. It’s background reading to help owners understand the landscape, not instructions for any particular situation.

What AB 747 and AB 2042 change

Starting January 1, 2027, serving an eviction lawsuit in California comes with new proof requirements, and old judgments become easier to attack.

AB 747 (Chapter 563 of 2025) changes how a summons is served in California civil cases generally, including evictions:

• Photos with every attempt. The proof of service must include a photo of the site of each attempted or completed service, with an automatically recorded date, time, and GPS coordinates. There are exceptions when a photo would compromise the server’s safety or no signal is available.
• The “3-3-3” rule. Before substituted service, the server must make good-faith attempts at personal delivery on at least three different days, at three different times of day, with at least one attempt at the person’s home if it is known. No court has yet defined what counts as a “different time.”
• A new way to challenge service. AB 747 also created Code of Civil Procedure 473.2. Once a defendant offers evidence that service was improper, the usual presumption that a registered process server’s proof of service is correct is rebutted, and the party who obtained the judgment must prove proper service by a preponderance of the evidence.
• Longer paperwork. Draft Judicial Council forms seen by the speakers grow the proof of service from two pages to five, before photos.

AB 2042 (Chapter 379 of 2026), the cleanup bill signed September 20, 2026, amends and clarifies the section 473.2 procedure. It also lets a defendant who lacked actual notice ask to set aside a default even where service was lawful, but that provision applies to lawsuits brought by debt buyers, not to evictions generally. In the speakers’ view, the combined effect is that a registered process server’s proof of service no longer carries the weight it used to once it is challenged.

That challenge can come for as long as the judgment is in force, which for a possession or money judgment is generally 10 years.

Neither law yet requires photos when serving a 3-day notice. Both speakers expect that to come, along with possible registration requirements for anyone who serves notices.

Why it matters: the eviction you won can be undone

Picture an eviction won by default seven years ago. The former tenant now can’t rent because of the judgment, so they file a motion saying they were never served, and the landlord has to prove service again.

Can the process server be found? Are they still in business? Do they still have the photos and notes? According to the speakers, if the court isn’t satisfied that service was proper, the judgment may be set aside as void, which could open the door to claims that the eviction was improper.

The speakers also described a familiar problem: tenants sometimes tell the court they mailed papers to the landlord when they didn’t. If a landlord never learns about a set-aside hearing, they may not appear, and the motion may be granted.

Why a default judgment is no longer the “easy win”

Landlords have long preferred defaults because they are fast and cheap. Under the new rules, the speakers argued, a judgment after the tenant answers and the case is heard is much harder to undo. A tenant who answered has submitted to the court’s jurisdiction and can’t later claim they weren’t served.

Whether that view holds up will depend on how courts apply the new laws. Their broader point was that a default judgment is only as durable as the records behind it.

Why the 3-day notice gets so much attention

The speakers called the notice the “breeder document” because the lawsuit grows out of it. In their experience, it is the cheapest part of an eviction and the most common reason cases get dismissed. A complaint can be amended; a notice generally can’t, so a defective notice usually means starting over.

How Code of Civil Procedure 1162 describes service

Section 1162 lists methods of serving a notice in a particular order, with posting described as a last resort. Here is how the speakers walked through it in practice:

1. Personal service. The server tries to hand the notice to the tenant, knocking and ringing more than once.
2. Place of employment. The speakers stressed that if the tenant’s workplace is known, they attempt service there too.
3. Substituted service. If the tenant isn’t available, the notice may be left with a competent adult at the home or workplace, followed by mailing.
4. Asking around. Eric described checking with neighbors for a work address or schedule before resorting to posting.
5. Post and mail. Only after those attempts fail is the notice posted in a conspicuous place and a copy mailed.

Extra steps the speakers described

• Separate copies. Eric serves a copy for each named adult plus one for “all other occupants.” John noted some Northern California judges see that as redundant, so practice varies by court.
• Adult children. They discussed naming household members who have turned 18, both to close off later claims and because it can affect who a money judgment reaches.
• Mailing records. Both photocopy each stamped envelope.
• Certificate of Mailing. Effective December 24, 2025, USPS clarified that a machine postmark reflects the date mail is first processed, which can be later than the day it was dropped off. A USPS Certificate of Mailing (PS Form 3817, currently $2.45) or a manual postmark requested at the counter documents the mailing date.
• Photos. Photos aren’t currently required for notices, but both speakers already photograph postings and envelopes and expect a requirement to follow.
• Originals. The served party gets a copy; the original is typically filed with the complaint.

Dating notices after Eshagian v. Cepeda

In Eshagian v. Cepeda (2025), a California Court of Appeal found a 3-day notice invalid because it didn’t clearly tell the tenant how and by when to pay. Since then, many standard forms have been updated to show service dates and deadline information, and attorneys differ on exactly what a notice should state. Local ordinances, such as the City of Los Angeles’s, can add their own content requirements.

Contemporaneous notes

The speakers emphasized notes written at the time of each attempt: who served, when, what happened, and whether the workplace was tried. In their view, notes made at the time carry more weight than ones reconstructed later.

Owner-served vs. professionally served notices

Owners may serve their own notices. The speakers noted that a registered process server’s proof of service on a notice still carries a legal presumption of validity. Fees mentioned in the webinar were around $100 in Southern California and $150 in the Bay Area.

Once the case is filed: the summons and complaint

Once a case is filed, a landlord can’t serve their own lawsuit, so the attorney usually hires the process server. The speakers covered a few points owners often ask about at this stage:

• Prejudgment claim of right to possession. A one-page form served with the summons and complaint on everyone at the unit. John explained that it adds about 10 days up front but is designed to prevent unknown occupants from filing last-minute claims that delay a lockout.
• Owner copies. Both speakers suggested owners keep their own file of pleadings, separate from the law firm’s.
• Service records. From 2027, proofs of service will include geolocated photos. The speakers recommended owners ask for copies along with the server’s contact details.
• Attorney substitution. Eric noted many eviction firms withdraw after the lockout, so a later challenge may land on the owner.

Records the speakers suggested keeping

Because a judgment can be challenged as long as it remains in force, generally 10 years, the speakers recommended holding on to records at least that long:

• The notice as served
• Notes made at the time of each service attempt
• Photos of the posting, the door, and stamped envelopes
• USPS Certificates of Mailing
• The process server’s proofs of service, photos, and contact information
• Copies of the pleadings in the case
• The judgment and lockout records
• Current tenant contact and employment information

Eric keeps his firm’s digital records indefinitely; his records go back about 20 years.

What came up in the webinar Q&A

Email service. Asked whether a notice can be served by email, even with the tenant’s agreement, the panel said no.

Envelopes on the door. Both speakers post notices face up rather than in an envelope, citing cases where tenants claimed the envelope was empty.

Photos of personal service. Not currently required for notices; Eric said he tries to photograph the person served holding the papers.

Other notices. The service rules discussed apply to notices under CCP 1161 that can lead to an unlawful detainer. Rent increase, abandonment, and notice-to-enter rules are separate.

No written lease. The panel noted an oral agreement is still a rental agreement, generally treated as month-to-month.

The bottom line

AB 747 and AB 2042 don’t change why an eviction may be filed, but they raise the stakes on how service is documented, for years after a case ends. Owners who understand the changes are better prepared to have informed conversations with their attorneys.

Questions about managing a rental property in Los Angeles? Contact Legacy Asset Management.

Disclaimer: This article is for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal advice and should not be relied on as such. It summarizes publicly available information and the opinions of third-party speakers, which may not reflect current law or apply to your situation. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Legacy Asset Management is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice. Consult a licensed California attorney about any specific notice, eviction, or legal matter.

Sources

• AB 747 bill summary (CalMatters Digital Democracy)
• AB 2042 bill summary (CalMatters Digital Democracy)
• Eshagian v. Cepeda (2025), Court of Appeal opinion
• Apartment Owners Association webinar with Eric Ratliff and John Healey (AOA USA YouTube channel)