Go to previous topic
Go to next topic
Last Post 28 Jul 2021 11:27 PM by  GeraldWilliams
R-21-0039 PETITION TO AMEND RULES 5, 6, AND 11 AND APPENDIX A OF THE ARIZONA RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR EVICTION ACTIONS
 1 Replies
Author Messages
Yolanda Fox
Basic Member
Posts:225 Basic Member

--
01 Jul 2021 06:47 PM
    David K. Byers
    Administrative Director
    Administrative Office of the Courts
    1501 W. Washington, Suite 411
    Phoenix, AZ 85007-3327
    Phone: (602) 452-3301
    [email protected]

    Filed: July 1, 2021

    Would amend Rules 5, 6, and 11 of the Arizona Rules of Eviction Procedure, and Appendix A to those rules, to conform the rules and appendix to a recent statutory enactment permitting a party, attorney, or witness to appear remotely at an initial appearance of a special detainer or forcible detainer proceeding using a telephone or video conference connection.

    Comments due no later than October 1, 2021.

    Reply is due no later than October 15, 2021.
    Attachments
    GeraldWilliams
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    28 Jul 2021 11:27 PM
    Prior to the proposed amendments in this petition to the eviction rules, I submitted R-21-0035. Both petitions seek to provide implementing guidance for A.R.S. § 22-206. The main difference between the two proposals is this one openly states that a court rule should interpret the statute to mean something different than what it actually says.

    It is undisputed A.R.S. § 22-206 requires some type of written notice prior to an eviction litigant appearing remotely. This language was added so that a judge has some idea whether a litigant will attempt to appear by phone or by video, and if by video, on which platform. Without this basic level of notice, the potential for a court to inadvertently default self-represented litigants is significant and courts may end up entertaining multiple requests to set aside judgments. R-21-0035 attempts to solve any access to the courtroom issues by making it extremely easy to comply with the written notice requirement. It also provides a significant level of judicial flexibility. This petition, R-21-0039, attempts to resolve potential access issues by interpreting the statue as if the words “written notice” were invisible.

    A basic principle of statutory interpretation is that the words of a governing text are of utmost concern, and what they convey in their context, is what the text truly means. A desire to prevent hypothetical abuse or misinterpretation cannot justify an alternate interpretation, especially if it is dependent upon a wish that the law adopted by the two other branches of government said something else. The Arizona Supreme Court should not adopt a court rule that is so obviously contrary to a clear and unambiguous statutory requirement.

    GERALD A. WILLIAMS
    Justice of the Peace
    North Valley Justice Court


    ---