03/11/2020 — CV2018010957 HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, CROSS RIVER 03/11/2020 HONORABLE DAVID W. GARBARINO View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
03/12/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-010957
03/11/2020
Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DAVID W. GARBARINO
L. Brown
Deputy
CROSS RIVER HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION
CHANDLER W TRAVIS
v.
YOUNG SIN KIM, et al.
C ADAM BUCK
COMM. GARBARINO
MINUTE ENTRY
IT IS ORDERED setting a Telephonic Status Conference regarding a pending
Application for Release of Excess Proceeds on April 3, 2020 at 10:45 a.m., (time allotted: 15
minutes), in this division:
Maricopa County Superior Court
East Court Building
101 West Jefferson
Courtroom 813
Phoenix, AZ 85003
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that parties may appear telephonically for the above
scheduled event. The parties are directed to contact this division at least five minutes prior
to the hearing (602-372-2403). C. Adam Buck shall coordinate the conference call. All parties
appearing telephonically must be joined in a single conference call and be prepared to hold until
called to testify.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-010957
03/11/2020
Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 2
The call should be placed from a telephone in an area with no background noise as this
will prevent the parties from hearing the proceedings in the courtroom. The call may not be
placed from a vehicle. Also, the use of cellular telephones to call into the hearing is strongly
discouraged.
03/13/2020 — CV2018010957 HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, CROSS RIVER 03/13/2020 HONORABLE DAVID W. GARBARINO View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
03/16/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-010957
03/13/2020
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DAVID W. GARBARINO
K. Cabral
Deputy
CROSS RIVER HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION
CHANDLER W TRAVIS
v.
YOUNG SIN KIM, et al.
C ADAM BUCK
COMM. GARBARINO
MINUTE ENTRY
Courtroom: ECB 813.
3:00 p.m. This is the time set an emergency hearing on Defendants’ Motion for Relief
From Judgment (Expedited Ruling and Oral Argument Requested) filed March 10, 2020. Plaintiffs
are represented by Chandler W. Travis. Defendants are represented by C. Adam Buck.
A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.
Motion is argued to the Court.
Based on the matters discussed,
IT IS ORDERED accelerating the briefing schedule as follows:
Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Motion for Relief From Judgment is due by
March 27, 2020.
Defendants’ Reply is due by April 3, 2020.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-010957
03/13/2020
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting an Oral Argument Re: Defendants’ Motion for
Relief From Judgment (Expedited Ruling and Oral Argument Requested) filed March 10, 2020 on
April 15, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. (time allotted: 30 minutes) in this Division:
Maricopa County Superior Court
East Court Building
101 West Jefferson
Courtroom 813
Phoenix, AZ 85003
NOTE: All court proceedings are recorded by audio and video method and not by a court
reporter. Pursuant to Local Rule 2.22, if a party desires a court reporter for any proceeding in
which a court reporter is not mandated by Arizona Supreme Court Rule 30, the party must submit
a written request to the assigned judicial officer at least ten (10) judicial days in advance of the
hearing, and must pay the authorized fee to the Clerk of the Court at least two (2) judicial days
before the proceeding. The fee is $140 for a half-day and $280 for a full day.
04/15/2020 — CV2018010957 HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, CROSS RIVER 04/15/2020 HONORABLE DAVID W. GARBARINO View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
04/17/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-010957
04/15/2020
Docket Code 087
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DAVID W. GARBARINO
D. Henderson
Deputy
CROSS RIVER HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION
CHANDLER W TRAVIS
v.
YOUNG SIN KIM, et al.
C ADAM BUCK
COMM. GARBARINO
MINUTE ENTRY
Courtroom: ECB 813.
11:02 a.m. This is the time set for a Telephonic Oral Argument. Plaintiff, Cross River
Homeowners Association, is represented by counsel, Chandler Travis, who appears
telephonically. Defendants, Young Sin Kim and Bun Hee Kim (collectively, the “Defendants”),
are represented by counsel, C. Adam Buck, who appears telephonically.
A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.
Argument is held regarding Defendants’ Motion for Relief from Judgment.
Based on the matters presented,
IT IS ORDERED scheduling an Order to Show Cause Return Hearing (fifteen minutes)
on May 8, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. at which time third-party Maricopoly L.L.C. (“Maricopoly”) shall
appear in this division and show cause why the Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure relating to
the property located at 12034 W. Morning Dove Drive, Sun City, Arizona 85373 (the
“Property”), entered against Defendants on November 21, 2018, should not be set aside for lack
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-010957
04/15/2020
Docket Code 087
Form V000A
Page 2
of service on Defendants. The Property was the subject of a sheriff’s sale held on July 11, 2019,
at which Maricopoly was the prevailing bidder and purchaser. The purpose of the Return
Hearing will be to allow Maricopoly to participate in the litigation of Defendants’ Motion for
Relief from Judgment, and determine whether further briefing and/or discovery is appropriate to
allow Maricopoly an opportunity to defend its interests in the Property.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties may appear telephonically for the above
scheduled event. The parties are directed to contact this division at least five minutes prior
to the hearing using either the Court’s bridge line (602-506-9695, participant code 366920#)
or the Court’s direct line (602-372-2403). The call should be placed from a telephone in an
area with no background noise as this will prevent the parties from hearing the proceedings in the
courtroom.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall cause this minute entry and a copy
of Defendants’ Motion for Relief from Judgment and all subsequent briefing thereof to be served
upon Maricopoly within five calendar days of the filing date of the minute entry as required by
Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 4.1.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting an Evidentiary Hearing on May 29, 2020 at 9:00
a.m. (1 ½ hours, allotted) in this Division:
Maricopa County Superior Court
East Court Building
101 W. Jefferson
Courtroom 813
Phoenix, AZ 85003
The Court anticipates that the evidentiary hearing will be limited to facts relevant to
whether Defendants “actually resided” at the Property as the time of service. See Bowen v.
Graham, 140 Ariz. 593, 597, 684 P.2d 165, 169 (App. 1984) (“We agree that constitutional due
process notice requires that substituted service at the defendant's ‘usual place of abode’ must be
at the place where the defendant normally actually resides so that service will be ‘substantially ...
likely to bring home notice’ to the party affected.” (Quoting Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank &
Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 315, 70 S.Ct. 652, 658, 94 L.Ed. 865, 874 (1950)).).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED appointing a Korean interpreter from Court Interpretation
and Translation Services to the case to assist Young Sin Kim and Bun Hee Kim with all
proceedings. The next scheduled proceeding is set on May 29, 2020 at 9:00 a.m.
11:44 p.m. Matter concludes.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-010957
04/15/2020
Docket Code 087
Form V000A
Page 3
05/08/2020 — CV2018010957 HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, CROSS RIVER 05/08/2020 HONORABLE DAVID W. GARBARINO View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
05/11/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-010957
05/08/2020
Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DAVID W. GARBARINO
L. Brown
Deputy
CROSS RIVER HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION
CHANDLER W TRAVIS
v.
YOUNG SIN KIM, et al.
C ADAM BUCK
LAWRENCE K LYNDE
COMM. GARBARINO
MINUTE ENTRY
Courtroom: ECB 813.
9:00 a.m. This is the time set for an Order to Show Cause Hearing. Plaintiff Cross River
Homeowners Association is represented telephonically by counsel, Chandler Travis. Defendants
Young Sin Kim and Bun Hee Kim are represented telephonically by counsel, C. Adam Buck.
Maricopoly, LLC is represented telephonically by counsel, Lawrence Lynde. No other parties
are present.
A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.
Discussion is held regarding the briefing schedule for the evidentiary hearing scheduled
for May 29, 2020.
Based upon the matters presented,
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-010957
05/08/2020
Docket Code 005
Form V000A
Page 2
IT IS ORDERED affirming the Evidentiary Hearing on May 29, 2020 at 9:00 a.m., in this
division.
9:18 a.m. Matter concludes.
LATER:
After further consideration, the Court concludes that an in-person hearing on May 29,
2020, would not be permitted under Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County, Administrative
Oder (“AO”) 2020-065. Accordingly, absent modification of AO 2020-065, the Court will hold
the hearing using GoToMeeting. Please join the meeting from your computer, tablet or
smartphone using the following login/sign-in information
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/134503029
You can also dial in using your phone.
(For supported devices, tap a one-touch number below to join
instantly.)
United States: +1 (646) 749-3112
- One-touch: tel:+16467493112,,134503029#
Access Code: 134-503-029
Join from a video-conferencing room or system.
Dial in or type: 67.217.95.2 or inroomlink.goto.com
Meeting ID: 134 503 029
Or dial directly: [email protected] or
67.217.95.2##134503029
New to GoToMeeting? Get the app now and be ready when your
first meeting starts:
https://global.gotomeeting.com/install/134503029
If any party objects to using GoToMeeting and prefers to wait until an in-person hearing can be
held, that party shall file on objection or before May 15, 2020 articulating a legal and/or factual
reason as to why the use of GoToMeeting would be prejudicial, and opposing parties shall file a
response by May 22, 2020.
05/29/2020 — CV2018010957 HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, CROSS RIVER 05/29/2020 HONORABLE DAVID W. GARBARINO View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
06/02/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-010957
05/29/2020
Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DAVID W. GARBARINO
L. Brown
Deputy
CROSS RIVER HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION
CHANDLER W TRAVIS
v.
YOUNG SIN KIM, et al.
C ADAM BUCK
LAWRENCE K LYNDE
COMM. GARBARINO
MINUTE ENTRY
Courtroom: ECB 813.
Prior to the start of the hearing, Amy Lee is sworn to act as an Interpreter of the Korean
language.
9:01 a.m. This is the time set for a Telephonic Evidentiary Hearing. Plaintiff, Cross
River Homeowners Association is represented telephonically by counsel, Chandler Travis.
Defendants, Young Sin Kim and Bun Hee Kim are present telephonically and assisted
telephonically in the Korean language by outside interpreter, Amy Lee, and represented
telephonically by counsel, Adam Buck. Maricopoly, LLC is represented telephonically by
counsel, Lawrence Lynde. No other parties are present.
A record of the proceedings is made digitally in lieu of a court reporter.
Young Sin Kim and Bun Hee Kim are sworn and testifies with the assistance of Amy
Lee, to act as interpreter of the Korean language.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-010957
05/29/2020
Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 2
Discussion is held regarding exhibits submitted via email.
Defendant’s exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are received in evidence.
Maricopoly, LLC’s exhibit 7 is received in evidence.
Based upon the matters presented,
IT IS ORDERED taking this matter under advisement.
11:13 a.m. Matter concludes.
06/05/2020 — CV2018010957 HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, CROSS RIVER 06/05/2020 HONORABLE DAVID W. GARBARINO View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
06/09/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-010957
06/05/2020
Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DAVID W. GARBARINO
L. Brown
Deputy
CROSS RIVER HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION
CHANDLER W TRAVIS
v.
YOUNG SIN KIM, et al.
C ADAM BUCK
LAWRENCE K LYNDE
COMM. GARBARINO
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court received and reviewed Defendants’ Motion for Relief from Judgment (the
“Motion”) filed by Defendants Young Sin Kim and Bun Hee Kim (collectively, “Defendants”),
Plaintiff’s Response to the Motion filed by Plaintiff Cross River Homeowners Association
(“Plaintiff”), Defendants’ Reply in Support of the Motion, and Response of Maricopoly, LLC to
Order to Show Cause. Defendants argue that they were not served with the Summons and
Complaint, and therefore, the Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure by default (the “Default
Judgment”) is void under Rule 60(b)(4) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court held
oral argument on the Motion on April 15, 2020, and an evidentiary hearing on May 29, 2020.
Counsel for Plaintiff, Defendants, and Maricopoly, and the Defendants appeared by video
conference for the hearing. Defendants were assisted by a Korean interpreter who called into the
video conference. Both Defendants were subject to direct, cross, and redirect examinations.
The Court entered the Default Judgment against Defendants on November 21, 2018. On
July 11, 2018, and in accordance with the Default Judgment, the Sheriff held a sheriff’s sale of
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-010957
06/05/2020
Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 2
the residential property located at 12034 W. Morning Dove,1 Sun City, Arizona (the “Subject
Property”). Maricopoly, LLC (“Maricopoly”) purchased the Subject Property at the sheriff’s
sale. The sheriff’s sale resulted in excess proceeds of $54,687.91, which the Sheriff deposited
with the Clerk of Court. Defendants applied to recover the excess proceeds on March 3, 2020
(the “Application”). Six days later, Defendants withdrew their application, and then filed the
Motion the day after the withdrawal.
Defendants argue that the Default Judgment is void for lack of service. Specifically, the
person served was not either Defendant, and the Defendants did not reside at the Subject
Property. Defendants are in their seventies, assert that they have resided at their home located at
4342 N. 107th Lane, Phoenix, Arizona for many years, and have never resided at the Subject
Property. Defendants claim that they purchased the Subject Property as an investment, and that
they allowed their adult son and his family to reside at the Subject Property. Defendants’ son was
to pay the mortgage and homeowners association assessments. Plaintiff attempted to serve the
Summonses and Complaint upon Defendants at the Subject Property. The Certificate of Service
states that the process server served both Defendants by leaving the Summonses and Complaint
with Young Sin Kim in person, and describes Mr. Kim as 35-year old male. Defendants claim
that the process server served their adult son. Plaintiff asserts that the son identified himself as
Young Sin Kim.
When “a defendant is not properly served with process, any resulting judgment is void
and must be vacated upon request.” Hilgeman v. Am. Mortg. Sec., Inc., 196 Ariz. 215, 218, ¶ 8,
994 P.2d 1030, 1033 (App. 2000). Nevertheless, “[s]ervice of process can be impeached only by
clear and convincing evidence.” Gen. Elec. Capital Corp. v. Osterkamp, 172 Ariz. 191, 194, 836
P.2d 404, 407 (App. 1992). An individual may be served in Arizona by “delivering a copy of the
summons and the pleading being served to that individual personally,” by “leaving a copy of
each at that individual’s dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and
discretion who resides there,” or by “delivering a copy of each to an agent authorized by
appointment or by law to receive service of process.” Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.1(d)(1)-(3) (emphasis
added). Defendants argue that service was ineffective because (1) Defendants were not
personally served, (2) their adult son was not served at Defendants’ “dwelling or usual place of
abode,” and (3) their son was not authorized to accept service on their behalf. Id. 4.1(d)(2).
At oral argument, the Court determined that a factual issue existed. Specifically, the
Court set an evidentiary hearing to receive evidence as to whether Defendants “actually resided”
at the Subject Property at the time of service. See Bowen v. Graham, 140 Ariz. 593, 597, 684
P.2d 165, 169 (App. 1984) (“We agree that constitutional due process notice requires that
1 The word “Morning” is not a typographical error. While “mourning” dove are a species of dove
commonly found in Arizona, the street bears the name “Morning” Dove.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-010957
06/05/2020
Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 3
substituted service at the defendant’s ‘usual place of abode’ must be at the place where the
defendant normally actually resides so that service will be ‘substantially ... likely to bring home
notice’ to the party affected.” (Quoting Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S.
306, 315 (1950)).). Further, the Court ordered Maricopoly to appear and show cause why the
Default Judgment should not be set aside. The purpose of the order to show cause was to give
Maricopoly notice that Defendants had challenged the Default Judgment giving rise to the
sheriff’s sale, and to give Maricopoly an opportunity to participate in the proceedings.
Plaintiff argues that the Motion is untimely. There is, however, “no time limit in which a
motion for a void judgment must be brought under Rule 60(c)(4)[, now 60(b)(4)], and the court
must vacate such a judgment even in the case of unreasonable delay by the party seeking relief.”
Master Fin., Inc. v. Woodburn, 208 Ariz. 70, 74, ¶, 90 P.3d 1236, 1240 (App. 2004), as amended
(citations omitted). The twist added by Maricopoly, i.e., that the Motion was untimely in light of
the sale of the property by Maricopoly to a third-party, is not material. Maricopoly does not cite
any legal authorities that would permit the Court to disregard Master Fin., Inc. v. Woodburn,
even if a sheriff’s sale had been held and the Subject Property had been conveyed after the
sheriff’s sale.
Plaintiff argues that service upon Defendant’s son was proper, i.e., they were served at
their dwelling via a person of suitable age and discretion, and that Defendants failed to impeach
service by clear and convincing evidence as required under General Electric Capital Corp., 172
Ariz. at 194, 836 P.2d at 407. As explained in Bowen, “constitutional due process notice requires
that substituted service at the defendant’s ‘usual place of abode’ must be at the place where the
defendant normally actually resides so that service will be ‘substantially ... likely to bring home
notice’ to the party affected.” 140 Ariz. at 597, 684 P.2d at 169 (quoting Mullane, 339 U.S. at
315). First, Plaintiff and Maricopoloy did not dispute that the physical description of the person
served in the Certificate of Service did not match the physical description of Mr. Kim, that is, the
process server did not serve either Defendant in person. The Court concludes that Defendants
satisfied the burden of proof that they were not personally served. Second, despite some
inconsistent testimony regarding their declarations, the Court concludes that the inconsistencies
were the result of language barriers, not the credibility of the Defendants. Defendants proved, by
clear and convincing evidence that they did not actually reside at the Subject Property at the time
of service. Further, there was no evidence that Defendants’ adult son was authorized to accept
service on behalf of his parents.
Plaintiff argues that the Court should not reward a bad actor by setting aside the Default
Judgment. The Court agrees that if Defendants’ son told the process server that he was Young
Sin Kim that was improper and unfortunate. Nevertheless, that misrepresentation does not alter
the Defendants’ due process rights afforded by Rule 4.1 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-010957
06/05/2020
Docket Code 926
Form V000A
Page 4
Finally, Maricopoly argues that Defendants’ failure to redeem the property terminated
Defendants’ interests in the property, and Defendants ask the Court to vacate the sheriff’s sale.
Neither Maricoploy nor Defendants have directed the Court to any specific legal authority
supporting their positions. A brief amount of research, however, revealed the case of Sprang v.
Petersen Lumber, Inc., 165 Ariz. 257, 798 P.2d 395 (App. 1990). Sprang holds that “[w]hen a
judgment is void, the execution of the judgment is void, and title to land does not pass.” Id. at
262, 798 P.2d at 400. Even a bona fide purchaser for value is not shielded from the consequences
of a void judgment Id. at 263, 798 P.2d at 401. Neither Plaintiff nor Maricopoly suggested or
argued that the Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 66 (1982) applied in this case.
For the reasons stated above,
IT IS ORDERED that the Default Judgment is set aside and vacated.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the sheriff’s sale is set aside and vacated.
06/22/2020 — CV2018010957 HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, CROSS RIVER 06/22/2020 HONORABLE DAVID W. GARBARINO View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
06/23/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-010957
06/22/2020
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DAVID W. GARBARINO
L. Brown
Deputy
CROSS RIVER HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION
CHANDLER W TRAVIS
v.
YOUNG SIN KIM, et al.
C ADAM BUCK
LAWRENCE K LYNDE
COMM. GARBARINO
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court received Maricopoly, LLC’s Motion for Reconsideration Re: Setting Aside
Default Judgment. The court is unable to grant that motion, even in part, without allowing for a
response. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 7.1(e).
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff and Defendant shall file a Response within 10 court days
of the filing of this minute entry.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Maricopoly, LLC may file a Reply thereafter as
allowed under Civil Rules 7.1(a)(3) and 6(a).
08/06/2020 — CV2018010957 HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, CROSS RIVER 08/06/2020 HONORABLE DAVID W. GARBARINO View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
08/07/2020 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-010957
08/06/2020
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DAVID W. GARBARINO
L. Brown
Deputy
CROSS RIVER HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION
CHANDLER W TRAVIS
v.
YOUNG SIN KIM, et al.
C ADAM BUCK
LAWRENCE K LYNDE
COMM. GARBARINO
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court received and reviewed Maricopoly’s Motion for Reconsideration Re: Setting
Aside Default Judgment, Defendants’ response thereto, and Maricopoly’s supporting reply.
Maricopoly’s argument rests on the Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 66. Maricopoly did
not cite or brief application of the Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 66 prior to the date of
the hearing despite having an opportunity to do so. Nevertheless, even if the Court applied the
Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 66 to the evidence offered by the parties during the
hearing, the Court concludes that Defendants did not manifest an intent to treat the judgment as
valid. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED denying Maricopoly’s Motion for Reconsideration Re: Setting Aside
Default Judgment.
10/08/2018 — CV2018010957 HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, CROSS RIVER 10/08/2018 HON. TERESA SANDERS View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
10/11/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-010957
10/08/2018
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. TERESA SANDERS
K. Cabral/A. Durda
Deputy
CROSS RIVER HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION
CHANDLER W TRAVIS
v.
YOUNG SIN KIM, et al.
COMM. GARBARINO
JUDGE SANDERS
MINUTE ENTRY
This Court has received Plaintiff’s e-filed Application for Default; Affidavit for Default
against defendants, Young Sin Kim and Bun Hee Kim, in the above-captioned case.
IT IS ORDERED that no action will be taken by this division on the above-referenced
document.
The parties are advised that commissioners handle Rule 55(b) Default Judgment
proceedings and that the default proceedings in this matter are to be heard by Commissioner
David Garbarino.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all documents necessary to support the entry of a
default judgment must be e-filed.
Pursuant to the Maricopa County eFiling Guidelines, Section 2.09, attorneys shall
electronically file all the documents required to request a default judgment, such as the
Application for Entry of Default, Motion for Entry of Default Judgment, Sum Certain Affidavit,
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2018-010957
10/08/2018
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
and Application for Attorneys’ Fees when appropriate and Statement of Costs, but shall submit a
default judgment packet required by the Court, including the documents identified on the default
judgment packet coversheet, in paper to the assigned commissioner’s division. A commissioner
will not act upon a Motion for Entry of Default Judgment until the default judgment packet with
all the required documents has been received by the division in paper form.
The parties/counsel can find additional information in the form of frequently asked
questions at:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/SuperiorCourt/CivilDepartment/howDoI.asp
