FAQ

Register       Login

YOUR HELP NEEDED: If you find a cross-reference that does not match the rule or subsection it refers to or any apparent clerical errors, please let us know by sending a precise description to [email protected].



Message from the Chief Justice

Current Arizona Rules on Westlaw

 

Amendments from Recent Rule Agendas
 

Rule Amendments (2006 to present) 

 

Proposed Local Rules

                

 

Welcome!

 

This website allows you to electronically file and monitor court rule petitions and comments and to view existing rules of court, recent amendments of those rules, and pending rule petitions and comments. Any visitor to this site may view posts on this website, but to post a petition or comment you must register and log in. To view instructions on how to register and how to file a petition or comment, please visit our Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page. 

BEFORE POSTING, PLEASE READ: 

Contact Information

Please include all of your contact information when submitting a rule petition or comment.  Otherwise, your submission may be rejected and we will be unable to advise you as to why. 

     
PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext 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
Sort:
Topic is locked
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
    Topic is locked