Valid, Voidable, or Void? Default Judgments and Attorney Notification Under Rule 55(A) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure

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.

Arizona Case Note | View PDF | Appears in Volume 53, Issue 4

One Response to Valid, Voidable, or Void? Default Judgments and Attorney Notification Under Rule 55(A) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure

  1. Pingback: Arizona Law Review | Valid, Voidable, or Void? Default Judgments … | Attorney