Skip to main content
Valid, Voidable, or Void? Default Judgments and Attorney Notification under Rule 55(a) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure

Abstract

The Arizona Supreme Court depublished a recent Arizona Court of Appeals case, Neeme Systems Solutions, Inc. v. Spectrum Aeronautica, LLC, on August 31, 2011. The case addressed the ambiguity in the attorney-notice requirement under Rule 55(a) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs the entry of default prior to a default judgment. This Note explores possible explanations for the depublication and the ramifications of those interpretations. Specifically, the depublication indicates that the Court embraces a narrow construction of the attorney-notice provision of the rule and that a failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 55(a) renders a default judgment merely voidable rather than void.

How to Cite

53 Ariz. L. Rev. 1363 (2011)

Downloads

Download PDF

22

Views

18

Downloads

Share

Authors

Grant D. Wille (University of Arizona)

Downloads

Issue

Publication details

Licence

All rights reserved

File Checksums (MD5)

  • PDF: cdcc3642c1038cd05134b4bda57bd28b