How have the courts dealt with a motion to vacate a judgment against a defendant who was found guilty of laches?

The county argues that the defendant is not entitled to relief because she is guilty of laches in that more than one and a half years had passed from the entry of judgment in January of 1979 to October of 1980, when defendant moved to have the judgment vacated. (See McCreadie v. Arques (1967) 248 Cal.App.2d 39, 56 Cal.Rptr. 188.) In passing on this argument we must look to the extent of prejudice to the opposing party and to the reasonableness of the moving party in not filing the motion to vacate earlier. (In re Marriage of Park (1980) 27 Cal.3d 337, 345, 165 Cal.Rptr. 792, 612 P.2d 882.) In this case, no claim of prejudice has been articulated by the county. Although defendant waived her right to counsel at the contempt hearing, the speed with which she moved to vacate the judgment once she was convicted of contempt shows diligence. Slightly more than two weeks after the contempt hearing, she employed an attorney to file a motion to vacate the original judgment. This can scarcely be denominated inexcusable neglect.