enforceable as such non parties second the void judgments do not become valid with the passage of time third under indiana law the law that was applied in this case when the judgment indiana looked to the law of the state in which collection efforts would be had in order to determine the validity of the enforcement of the judgment in that state and fourth under arizona law as it existed when mr going to change his judgement in fact when he filed this lawsuit to begin with arizona was a community property state and under arizona community property law both the husband of the wife were required to be joined in the underlying action i thought there was only law was that foreign judgment need not joining the spouse but the action in arizona did on a judgment or whatever they call it now i can't remember the collection proceedings of the proceeding where arizona law that has had a chance to deal with this particular issue has consistently held that the wife needed to be joined in the foreign jurisdiction the cases i think you are referring to ok yama national union versus green and alberta securities versus iraq men all dealt with situations where the judgment was entered before anybody was a resident of the state of arizona arizona according to the green case had absolutely no involvement in th case when the lawsuit was filed in the judgment was entered in new york and so in those cases your honor where the judgment is entered originally against non arizona residents still the process of her still the principle of  if you're late are going to discover property in arizona or california that's exactly the position that was taken in the green case your honor they said when arizona had absolutely no involvement with the case at the beginning of the case to require the judgment creditor or in this case the plaintiff to speculate that somebody might move to arizona or might later find arizona property was unreasonable and they were not going to require that the facts however in this case are that mr and mrs monroe were always residents of the state of arizona there's no question about that they lived in the state of arizona for years as married couples before the action was filed before the lawsuit came into existence before the judgment came into existence so there's no speculation here mr gagan knew from the get go that he was going to i think the court would have them dismissed the claims against the spouse who was not active in the breach of contract or court or whatever it was your honor i've searched the record i suppose my my  point has as well i've not the record but the cases and i found no case where a wife you know arizona was joined specifically under the arizona statute and the action as to the wife was dismissed i have however found where the action  in indiana for example that names the wife for purposes of satisfying to fifteen since she is an arizona resident could that part of that be dismissed because she wasn't involved and the answer to that is no she in advance that you could prove that they were and that the property that you start was community property let's assume for a moment that you're correct on that and let's go back to the principle that you asked me about at the very beginning and that is doesn't arizona law require the joinder of the not involved spouse at least in the collection proceedings in arizona where the underlying judgment was entered someplace else or other than arizona the answer to that judgment avoid judgment as avoid judgment it's void whenever it's discovered to be void and district court is required at that point in time to dismiss the judgment insofar as those people who are who have who have not been named  properly served this is a question of fundamental jurisdiction and the arizona statute requiring jointer is something that was well known in indiana and was something that was well known nationally prior to the commencement of this suit which versus johnson existed seen jet travel came down followed exactly the same thing the principles of jurisdiction are very well laid out you can't obtain a judgment that's valid enforceable against someone who has never been named or served in arizona we are community property state and we have every right to be a community property state and the community property laws of our state clearly establish that there is a requirement of joinder of both both spouses unless you have additional questions at me at this point your hon held in gagan versus monroe that the monroe community property is available for collection of this judgment despite the fact that this is monroe was not joined as a party i don't see how that could preclude her since she was not a has there's no way to know how the munros titled their property there was no way to know whether all the property was separate whether any of it was community property but it took time to think of your position is that for purposes  litigation in the court in indiana mr when roe is not guilty of record sharing in as far as i'm aware i can't allege against her that she's guilty of racketeering so the theory of joining her must be on some if i have a rico case that involves the defendant from arizona despite rico's provision for nationwide service of process and the ability to file the complaint in the jurisdiction where the plaintiff resides every rico case that involves an arizona defendant will therefore have to be file monroe out of the community property of the minerals mr monroe has authority to control and dispose of all of mineral community property his authority to bind the community and his conduct of litigation he did sharan the district court mrs monroe filed her petition for intervention that was the night she then moved to vacate the judgment that was the night she didn't obtain any certification under rule fifty four b that the case should be of the indiana judgment was registered here that's a final judgment so this case started with a final judgment confused about something here the procedure that i'm accustomed to is evidently different from the one that applies in arizona the procedure that i'm accustomed to is somebody has an indiana judgment they bring to alaska they file an action in alaska it's a regular lawsuit and a lawsuit says richard rowe is liable to john doe  judgment of another jurisdiction and where for the plaintiff the man's judgment in alaska for the same number of dollars and then the court issues the judgment and that the collection procedures have nothing to do with finality and once there's a final judgment collection maybe against one other both neither has nothing to do with finality and it sounds to me as though you're describing a different procedure in arizona where you don't want to judgment instead you just take it to the recorder's office and then you want to magically have a judgment is that is that the way it works in the united states just reports that's the way it works a  nations union fire insurance company we held that a judgment rendered against one spouse you know one community property jurisdiction may be enforced against the community property consistent with the process as long as one the obligation on which the foreign judgment with based would have been a community obligation if it had been incurred in arizona citing statutes and to the non defendant spouse is joined in the arizona domestication action and has been given an opportunity to contend that the judgment is invalid that did not happen in this case so you know that language may apply to an seventh circuit case on the shoe back case that's been cited in both briefs where this very issue came up and the decision was made by the seventh circuit in that case that arizona substantive law twenty five to fifteen must be also characterizes it as substantive i can hess that i am a little confused on what substantive and procedural might be as well my understanding was that substantive creative rights procedural told you how you can force those rights clearly arizona community property twenty five to fifteen the requires the jointer of both spouses and that certainly sounds like a substantive right to me is left is there something in arizona in the nature of partition action to partition arizona community property between a husband and a wife there are cases that expressly reject that opportunity it cannot be done as long as the community exists the husband has an undivided one half and for a while he has an undivided whole and a judgment creditor cannot force the partition that is existing arizona law you're out of the point that we keep trying to get to here is that mrs monroe's property is in fact being taken she owns one hundred percent of the community property just like mr monroe does her rights were required to be protected even in the cases that have been cited where they start off with people who had absolutely no contact with arizona at the beginning which is quite different than our case due court of appeals that requires the husband in his disposition and the wife as well in the disposition of community property assets to recognize on her and follow the fiduciary responsibilities they have the strawman role could not have given away the property of the m identified a portion of it the portion that deals with the fiduciary duty as a general proposition of arizona community property law was not limited to mazie it was applied in my state but it wasn't limited to mesa unless you have other questions with me