Opinion ID: 78616
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Collection Activities

Text: On a broad reading of action, arguably suggested by § 1-215, this term might include collection activities such as filing for writs of garnishment or an order to inspect a safety deposit box, as Fidelity did in this case. See Ariz.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 1-215(1) (defining action to include  any matter or proceeding) (emphasis added). We are uncertain, however, whether so broad a reading is appropriate, particularly in light of a recent unpublished case from the Arizona Court of Appeals, Jones v. Weston, 2009 Ariz. App. LEXIS 700 (Ariz.App. 2009), which suggests that Fidelity's collection activities and filing of the RICO claim are insufficient to renew the judgment. See also Kroncke v. Kroncke, 2009 WL 3786782 at  n. 3 (Ariz.Ct.App.2009) (An `action on a judgment' refers to a specific cause of action, the main purpose of which is `to obtain a new judgment which will facilitate the ultimate goal of securing the satisfaction of the original cause of action.' (quoting Associated Underwriters v. Wood, 209 Ariz. 137, 98 P.3d 572, 615 (Ariz.App.2004))). Although suggesting Fidelity's actions were not sufficient under §§ 12-1551 and 12-1611, Jones does not address § 1-215 and thus leaves us uncertain as to whether the court considered this statute and determined it should not apply and that action is not so broadly read, or whether its omission was inadvertent. Moreover, Jones is unpublished and therefore not precedential, adding further uncertainty as to its weight.