In an unlawful detainer case, should a motion to declare the defendant in default be granted?

• A. Yes, always
• B. No, it is a prohibited motion under Sec. 13, Rule 70
• C. Yes, but only if the defendant is served with notice
• D. No, unless the defendant files a verified answer later

Answer: (B)

In unlawful detainer, the procedure is designed to be quick and streamlined, with strict limits on how a party can be adjudicated. Section 13 of Rule 70 explicitly prohibits filing a motion to declare the defendant in default. The case is meant to move toward disposition based on the plaintiff’s evidence in a trial-type setting, rather than through a separate default-declaration motion. If the defendant fails to appear or to answer, the court can proceed to render judgment in favor of the plaintiff after the plaintiff presents evidence; there isn’t a separate, permissible step to declare default by motion.

That’s why the correct stance is that such a motion should not be granted. The other options don’t fit the rules: a default motion isn’t an allowed vehicle at all, and a defendant’s service or later filing of an answer doesn’t validate a default-declaration motion once the motion itself is prohibited.