Court Opinion

ID: 9584005
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:43:45.566809+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:06:26.409095
License: Public Domain

MEYERSON, Presiding Judge,
dissenting:
I dissent. The majority’s narrow interpretation given to the term “appeared” in Rule 55(b)(2) is incorrect.
In my opinion, the late filing of an answer can constitute an appearance under Rule 55(b)(2). Arizona courts have followed the majority rule and recognized that an appearance can be any action by which a party comes into court and submits himself to its jurisdiction. National Homes Corp. v. Totem Mobile Home Sales, Inc., 140 Ariz. 434, at 437, 682 P.2d 439 at 442 (1984) (quoting from Austin v. State ex rel. Herman, 10 Ariz.App. 474, 477, 459 P.2d 753, 756 (1969)). The filing of an answer is uncontrovertable evidence of a party’s intention to submit to the jurisdiction of the court. Rule 5(e). “[I]t has been uniformly held that where the party against whom a default judgment is sought has entered or filed a pleading relating to the cause, such as a complaint or an answer, he has ‘appeared’ in the action within the meaning of Rule 55(b)(2).” Annot., 27 A.L.R.Fed. 620, 624 (1976). See also Quaker Furniture House, Inc. v. Ball, 31 N.C.App. 140, 228 S.E.2d 475 (1976); Hood v. Haynes, 7 Kan.App.2d 591, 644 P.2d 1371 (1982); see generally Annot., 73 A.L.R.3d 1250 (1976).
Federal courts have also consistently adhered to a liberal interpretation of what constitutes an appearance under Rule 55(b)(2). See 10 C. Wright, A. Miller & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2686 (1983). In interpreting this rule, the court of appeals in H.F. Livermore Corp. v. Aktiengesellschaft Gebruder *67Loepfe, 432 F.2d 689 (D.C.Cir.1970), emphasized that the “policy underlying the modernization of federal procedure, namely, the abandonment or relaxation of restrictive rules which prevent the hearing of cases on their merits, is central to this issue.” Id. at 691. The court stated:
Given this approach, the default judgment must normally be viewed as available only when the adversary process has been halted because of an essentially unresponsive party____ The notice requirement contained in Rule 55(b)(2) is, however, a device intended to protect those parties who, although delaying in a formal sense by failing to file pleadings within the twenty-day period, have otherwise indicated to the moving party a clear purpose to defend the suit.

Id.

Nor am I persuaded that the timing of a defendant’s appearance is dispositive of notice requirements under Rule 55(b)(2). I believe that the majority’s conclusion that once default has been entered under Rule 55(a), the defendant has no right to file an answer or make any other appearances other than a request to set aside the default is an unduly restrictive interpretation of the rule. I find no language in the rule itself that mandates such a result, nor do I think this result furthers the policy favoring resolution of disputes on their merits. Additionally, I am unconvinced that the cases relied on by the majority dictate such a result. The notice requirement of Rule 55(b)(2) was simply not at issue before the court in either the Martin or Long-Cleveland-Hayhurst & Co. cases relied upon by the majority. Martin was decided under the default procedures set forth in the Revised Code of 1928. And in Long-Cleveland-Hayhurst & Co., the defendant had, in fact, received three days notice of the application for default judgment. Rather, the issue presented in both cases was whether the defendant, against whom a default had been entered, could, at that stage, defeat the plaintiff’s entire cause of action by filing a demurrer or a motion to dismiss the complaint without first moving to set aside the default. To me, these cases merely signify that the trial court cannot dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint without first setting aside the default.