ARCAP


 RULE  AFFECTS  SUMMARY AND IMPACT

All ARCAP Rules

 R-14-0017

Superior

Judges
Clerks
Administrators

Summary:  The Order adopted comprehensive amendments to the civil appellate rules, including stylistic and substantive revisions.  

Impact:  Every one of the civil appellate rules has been changed in some way, and the best way to become familiar with these changes is to review the new rules in their entirety.

Several items that should be of particular interest to the Superior Court include the following:

1.      A prefatory comment to the 2015 amendments provides a brief explanation of the purpose of the amendments.  It advises that “prior case law continues to be authoritative, unless it would be inappropriate because of a new requirement or provision in these amended rules.”  The preface also notes that the amended rules incorporate substantive matter that was previously contained in comments to the rules.

2.      Rule 1(c) includes an analogue of Rule 1 of the superior court rules, which is to use and interpret these amended rules to achieve the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of appeals.

3.      Rule 2 adds new definitions, among them, a definition of a “judgment” and a description of when “entry” of a judgment occurs.  (“‘Entry’ of a judgment occurs when it is filed by the superior court clerk.”)

4.      Former Rule 9.1, which concerns suspension of an appeal and re-vesting jurisdiction in the superior court, is now included as Rule 3(b).  The order re-vesting jurisdiction may allow the superior court to consider and determine specified matters.

5.      Rules 4.1 and 4.2 are new.  These rules describe requirements for paper and electronic filing.   The nomenclature throughout the amended rules is that parties “file” and “serve” documents; clerks “distribute” documents.

6.      Rule 7 provides that filing a motion for a supersedeas bond temporarily stays enforcement of the judgment, until the superior court has set the bond amount and provided appropriate time for posting the bond.   (However, a party may record a judgment until a bond is posted.) Judges should review the provisions of Rule 7 prior to entering orders concerning supersedeas bonds.

7.      Rules 8 and 9 now include specific provisions for how and when to take a cross-appeal.

8.      Another motion – a motion for relief under Rule 60 of the civil rules, or Rule 85 of the family rules, filed no later than15 days after entry of the judgment – is added to the list in ARCAP Rule 9(e) of post-judgment motions that alter the time for filing a notice of appeal or cross-appeal.

9.      PLEASE NOTE:  Rule 10, the former rule on cost bonds on appeal, has been eliminated.  After the effective date of these rules, electronic and manual systems should not require payment of a cost bond on appeal.  Rule 10 is now the rule for appeals in expedited election matters.

10.  Current Rule 11 is one of the lengthiest.   The amended rules split the content of that rule into two separate rules: Rule 11 (“The Record on Appeal”) and Rule 11.1 (“Transmitting the Record to the Appellate Court.”)   Amended Rule 11 contains new provisions about designation of the record on appeal.   New Rule 11.1 contains specific duties of the superior court clerk concerning transmission of the record to the appellate court.

A new form for a Notice of Appeal/Notice of Cross-Appeal/Amended Notice of Appeal is included as Form 1 of the amended rules.

Appendix 2 to the R-14-0017 Order includes conforming changes to the Rules of the Supreme Court, the Rules of Procedure for Special Actions, the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, the Arizona Rules of Procedure for the Juvenile Court, and the Arizona Rules of Family Law Procedure.

The rule amendments apply to all appeals in which the notice of appeal is filed on or after January 1, 2015.  Please note language in the R-14-0017 Order that these amendments apply in all other appeals pending on January 1, 2015, “…except to the extent that in the opinion of the applicable court the application of an amended rule in a particular pending action or proceeding would not be feasible or would work an injustice, in which case the former rule applies.”