Opinion ID: 1191579
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Validity of the December 22, 1986 Minute Order

Text: Because no court reporter was present at the December 22 hearing before Judge Fleischman, the enigmatic minute order of that date can only be explained by reference to another source. The only source in the record is the affidavit of Anthony J. Wiggins, plaintiff's counsel. That affidavit explains what happened at the hearing: Judge Fleischman told counsel for the plaintiff and the City that he questioned why plaintiff was involved in this dispute between the City and Cravens. Judge Fleischman then determined that an order against the City to pay $100,000 to plaintiff would be ineffective since no one at the City was authorized to pay that amount without approval of the mayor and council. Judge Fleischman then requested that plaintiff's counsel request entry of an order directing Cravens to pay $100,000 to plaintiff. Pursuant to the request from the court, plaintiff's counsel requested such an order and it was forthwith granted. At no time was any evidence of Cravens' liability presented by affidavit or otherwise. The original object of the hearing, the City's motion to dismiss, was taken under advisement. The minute entry summarily ordering Cravens to pay $100,000 plus interest and costs is erroneous and patently so. No rule of civil procedure authorizes a trial court to grant its own sua sponte request for judgment without giving notice and an opportunity to be heard to the opposing party. The court's request to plaintiff's counsel to, in turn, request the order from the court does not legitimatize the process  at best it converts it from an improper sua sponte order to an improper ex parte order. Not only does no rule permit this procedure, no such rule could constitutionally exist. Both the Arizona and federal constitutions prohibit deprivation of property without notice and hearing. Fair notice and hearing are fundamental and elementary requirements of due process. Huck v. Haralambie, 122 Ariz. 63, 65, 593 P.2d 286, 288 (1979). [I]t is a rule as old as the law that no one shall be personally bound until he has had his day in court, by which is meant until he has been duly cited to appear and has been afforded an opportunity to be heard. Judgment without such citation and opportunity lacks all the attributes of a judicial determination; it is judicial usurpation and oppression and can never be upheld where justice is fairly administered.... Phoenix Metals Corp. v. Roth, 79 Ariz. 106, 109-10, 284 P.2d 645, 647 (1955), quoting 12 Am.Jur. Constitutional Law § 573. In Phoenix Metals, we also quoted the United States Supreme Court's view of due process and its guarantee of notice and hearing: The law is, and always has been, that whenever notice of citation is required, the party cited has the right to appear and be heard; and when the latter is denied, the former is ineffectual for any purpose. The denial to a party in such a case, of the right to appear, is in legal effect the recall of the citation to him ... Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 U.S. [3 Otto] 274, 23 L.Ed. 914 [1876], and further: ... The fundamental conception of a court of justice is condemnation only after hearing. To say that courts have inherent power to deny all right to defend an action, and to render decrees without any hearing whatever, is, in the very nature of things, to convert the court exercising such an authority into an instrument of wrong and oppression, and hence to strip it of that attribute of justice upon which the exercise of judicial power necessarily depends. Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U.S. 409, 17 S.Ct. 841, 843, 42 L.Ed. 215 [1897]. Phoenix Metals, 79 Ariz. at 110, 284 P.2d at 647-48. Cravens had no notice whatsoever that a $100,000-plus judgment would be leveled against it at the December 22 hearing. Williams claims that Cravens had notice of the possibility of a decision against its interests resulting from the hearing. The only notice Cravens had was that the City might be released as a defendant on December 22. Even that possibility was remote at such an early stage of the proceedings and did not, in fact, occur. The motion to dismiss was totally separate and distinct from the oral request granted at the hearing. This distinction is obvious from the minute entry itself which grants the oral request but takes the motion to dismiss under advisement. On the merits, Williams makes little attempt to justify the patently erroneous order of December 22. Instead, she relies on procedural arguments. In the court of appeals, Williams argued that special action was inappropriate because Cravens had an adequate remedy on appeal. In this court, she argues that we should defer to the court of appeals' discretion. It is true that we will rarely grant special action relief where a later appeal is available. It is also true that decisions of the court of appeals in denying special action relief are largely discretionary. However, we have jurisdiction to grant relief where justice demands. Where, as here, the question presented is solely one of law and where there is no conceivable justification for the trial court's action, we may properly exercise our discretion in favor of a speedy resolution. King v. Superior Court, 138 Ariz. 147, 673 P.2d 787 (1983). Even the party who is the beneficiary of this gratuitous order for judgment can find no authority to support it. There is no justifiable reason to compel Cravens to get a final judgment, supersede it and then, after a lengthy appeal process, obtain the inevitable reversal.