01/17/2023 — CV2022093758 COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, SUN VILLAGE 01/17/2023 HONORABLE ROGER E. BRODMAN View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
01/20/2023 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2022-093758
01/17/2023
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE ROGER E. BRODMAN
C. Avena
Deputy
SUN VILLAGE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
CHARLES B SELLERS
v.
EDWARD K WRIGHT, et al.
EDWARD K WRIGHT
14458 W ZUNI TRL
SURPRISE AZ 85374
BROCK J HEATHCOTTE
BETTIE W WRIGHT
14458 W ZUNI TRL
SURPRISE AZ 85374
COMM BRODMAN
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court reviewed the Motion to Serve Through Publication. The motion is denied.
Service by publication is a last resort after service by alternate means has failed. Here,
someone with the same name as the defendant refused to accept legal documents. That does not
mean service is impractical under Rule 4.1(l). It just means someone refused to accept legal
papers.
IT IS ORDERED that the motion to serve by publication is denied without prejudice.
06/14/2023 — CV2022093758 COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, SUN VILLAGE 06/14/2023 HONORABLE PATRICIA TREBESCH View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
06/15/2023 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2022-093758
06/14/2023
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PATRICIA TREBESCH
C. Avena
Deputy
SUN VILLAGE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
CHARLES B SELLERS
v.
EDWARD K WRIGHT, et al.
EDWARD K WRIGHT
14458 W ZUNI TRL
SURPRISE AZ 85374
BROCK J HEATHCOTTE
BETTIE W WRIGHT
14458 W ZUNI TRL
SURPRISE AZ 85374
COMM. KAISER
COMM. TREBESCH
ORDER ENTERED BY THE COURT
MINUTE ENTRY
This division has received Plaintiff’s e-filed Application/Affidavit for Entry of Default
against Defendant(s), The Estate of Edward K. Wright and Bettie W. Wright, Sydney Dallas
and Susan Horne known heirs of Edward K. Wright and Bettie W. Wright, and the unknown
heirs and devisees of Edward K. Wright and Bettie W. Wright in the above-captioned case.
IT IS ORDERED that no action will be taken by this division on the above referenced
document(s).
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2022-093758
06/14/2023
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 2
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 Brian
Kaiser.
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, 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
The parties/counsel can find additional information regarding the default judgment process
at:
https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/llrc/cv_cvc6/.
09/19/2022 — CV2022093758 COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, SUN VILLAGE 09/19/2022 HONORABLE STEPHEN M. HOPKINS View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
09/20/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2022-093758
09/19/2022
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE STEPHEN M. HOPKINS
C. Avena
Deputy
SUN VILLAGE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
CHARLES B SELLERS
v.
EDWARD K WRIGHT, et al.
EDWARD K WRIGHT
14458 W ZUNI TRL
SURPRISE AZ 85374
BETTIE W WRIGHT
14458 W ZUNI TRL
SURPRISE AZ 85374
JUDGE HOPKINS
MINUTE ENTRY
Plaintiff has requested service by publication. The general rule on service by publication
is as follows:
Service by publication should be a last resort, and is limited strictly to cases of necessity.
It is ordinarily not permissible where personal service is practicable, such as where the
defendant’s address is ascertainable, even though personal service is difficult to obtain.
Otherwise stated, resort to service by publication is authorized only when personal
service cannot be made.
72 C.J.S Process § 81.
Accordingly, before service by publication is even entertained as an option there must be
a showing of due diligence. Sprang v. Petersen Lumber, Inc., 165 Ariz. 257, 798 P.2d 395 (App.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2022-093758
09/19/2022
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
1990). This requires such “pointed measures” as checking phone records, utility company
records, and other “record keepers” to locate a defendant. Id.
Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the requisite due diligence to justify service by
publication. As stated by our Court of Appeals in Ruffino v. Lokosky, 245 Ariz. 165, 170, 425
P.3d 1108, 1113 (App. 2018):
Even if Ruffino had proven that he made reasonably diligent efforts to obtain Lokosky's
address or that Lokosky intentionally avoided service, Rule 4.1(l )(1)(B) and due process
impose a requirement that service by publication be the best means practicable to provide
notice to the interested party. Master Fin., Inc. v. Woodburn, 208 Ariz. 70, 73, ¶ 15, 90
P.3d 1236, 1239 (App. 2004) (citing Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S.
306, 314, 70 S. Ct. 652, 94 L. Ed. 865 (1950) ). Given our present society, we agree with
the superior court that modern methods of communication, especially email, were more
likely to give Lokosky notice of a suit than publication in a newspaper distributed in a
rural area 70 miles from Lokosky's Scottsdale home. See Ritchie v. Salvatore Gatto
Partners, L.P., 223 Ariz. 304, 307, ¶ 8, 222 P.3d 920, 923 (App. 2010) (“It is axiomatic
that actual notice via publication is less certain....”); Marks v. LaBerge, 146 Ariz. 12, 15,
703 P.2d 559, 562 (App. 1985) (citing Scott v. G.A.C. Finance Corp., 107 Ariz. 304, 486
P.2d 786 (1971) ) (the purpose of service is to give the other party actual notice of the
proceeding). Under these circumstances, the best means practicable to alert Lokosky of
the suit and comply with due process was by alternative service. See Ariz. R. Civ. P.
4.1(k) (1).
Availability of alternative means of service is a factor a court must consider when
determining if publication was the best means practicable, and a plaintiff serving by
publication should be prepared to explain why alternative service would be impracticable.
Here, however, Ruffino did not move for leave to serve Lokosky by electronic means, see
Ariz. R. Civ. P. 5(c)(2)(D), and, on appeal, he makes no argument that service by
publication was in fact the best means to reach Lokosky. In addition, Ruffino did not mail
a copy of the summons and complaint to the Hartford address on the date of publication,
see Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.1(l )(3), which is further evidence he did not make a serious effort
to apprise Lokosky of the suit before seeking and obtaining a default judgment.
As Ruffino requires, “when more practicable channels of communication are available,
we hold a serving party should first use those channels to attempt to confirm the other party's
address, or move for alternative service, before service by publication can be considered the best
means practicable under the rule.” Id. (emphasis added).
Here, Plaintiff is apparently attempting to serve “known, immediate heirs.” The Court
has no idea who meets that criteria in Plaintiff’s view and who, exactly, Plaintiff proposes to
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2022-093758
09/19/2022
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 3
serve via publication. Moreover, if Plaintiff locates and serves the proper heirs or devisees of the
decedents there are no “Unknown Heirs and Devisees.”
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying the request for service by publication.
11/16/2022 — CV2022093758 COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, SUN VILLAGE 11/16/2022 HONORABLE STEPHEN M. HOPKINS View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
11/17/2022 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2022-093758
11/16/2022
Docket Code 375
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE STEPHEN M. HOPKINS
C. Avena
Deputy
SUN VILLAGE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
CHARLES B SELLERS
v.
EDWARD K WRIGHT, et al.
EDWARD K WRIGHT
14458 W ZUNI TRL
SURPRISE AZ 85374
BETTIE W WRIGHT
14458 W ZUNI TRL
SURPRISE AZ 85374
JUDGE HOPKINS
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has reviewed and considered Plaintiff’s request for additional time to
complete service. Good cause appearing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED extending the time to complete service to February 14,
2023.
The Court has granted an extension of time for Plaintiff to serve the Complaint and
accompanying documents in this case which supersedes the original time computation for
dismissal on the Inactive Calendar.
IT IS THEREFORE FURTHER ORDERED placing this case on the Inactive
Calendar for dismissal without further notice on February 15, 2023 unless an Affidavit of
Service of Process is filed before that date indicating that service has been effected in accordance
with the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure.
