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)

Download

Download PDF

3

Views

3

Downloads

Share

Authors

Grant D. Wille (University of Arizona)

Download

Issue

Publication details

Dates

Licence

All rights reserved

File Checksums (MD5)

  • PDF: cdcc3642c1038cd05134b4bda57bd28b