Court Opinion

ID: 9551555
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:55:15.903645+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:24:09.912313
License: Public Domain

HAYS, Justice
(dissenting):
I dissent. I am of the opinion that the trial judge exceeded his jurisdiction and abused his discretion in granting the defendants’ motion to quash the lis pendens.
The statute with which we are concerned is ARS § 12-1191 (A), which reads as follows :
“In an action affecting title to real property, plaintiff at the time of filing the complaint, or thereafter, and defendant at the time of filing his pleading when affirmative relief is claimed in such pleading, or thereafter, may file , in the office of the recorder of the county in which the property is situated a notice, of the pendency of the action or defense. The notice shall contain the names of the parties, the object of the action or affirmative defense, the relief demanded and a description of the property affected.”
In this special action we are confronted with the question of whether the court under the foregoing statute can look beyond the allegations of the complaint in determining the validity of the lis pendens. Admittedly, there is nothing in the statute which authorizes or sets guidelines for a motion to quash lis pendens, nor have the Arizona courts previously spoken on this subject.
The crux of this matter seems to lie in the query: under the lis pendens statute, can the court be required to preliminarily examine the merits of an action in order to determine the validity of a lis pendens? Our answer to that query is no.
The respondents in oral argument and in their brief have disclosed the weakness in their position by suggesting that even if a motion to quash won’t lie, perhaps a motion for summary judgment will. If respondents can get a summary judgment, they will have no trouble removing the lis pendens. This court, in the present posture of the case, is not the forum for that motion, however.
In specific answer to respondents’ contentions, we adhere to the position taken by the Connecticut Supreme Court in Ravitch v. Stollman Poultry Farms, Inc., 162 Conn. 26, 291 A.2d 213 (1971). In that-case the Supreme Court- of Connecticut said:
“Here, the referee, in ordering the partial release of the lis pendens based on equitable considerations which are in contention in the action, has prematurely considered the merits of the action and the ability of the plaintiff to prevail in the action. In granting the motion the referee necessarily concluded that the plaintiff had no right to have a trust imposed on all the property subject to the outcome of the litigation. This was an adverse determination of an ultimate issue in the plaintiff’s cause of action. The defendants have cited no case law or statute that gives the court power to decide such a matter on motion. ...” 291 A.2d at 218.
*386The Ravitch case supra also cites Sachs v. Nussenbaum, 92 Conn. 682, 104 A. 393, saying:
“[W]e held that the power of the judge to dissolve an excessive attachment is limited by the language of the statute which allows such a dissolution only when the attachment is excessive, and, in ordering a dissolution, the judge had no power to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint or to weigh the chances for the plaintiff’s recovery of his claim.” [citations omitted]. 291 A.2d at 218.
The only provisions for release of a lis pendens are found in ARS § 12-1191(C), which reads as follows :
“If a notice of pendency of action has been recorded pursuant to this section and the action is dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution, the plaintiff or plaintiffs of the action shall, within thirty days after such dismissal, issue to the defendant of the action a release of the notice of pendency of action. Such release shall be in the form of a recordable document. Failure to grant such release shall be subject to the penalties prescribed by § 33-712. As amended Laws 1974, Ch. 68, § 7.”
We find nothing in the foregoing recently enacted amendment which supports the concept of a motion to quash lis pendens which inquires into the merits of the litigation. We would leave to the legislature the question of providing relief, if the provisions of its statutory lis pendens are too onerous. In the position taken by the majority, we find evidenced that often-criticized propensity of the courts to attempt to right all wrongs without regard to whether the responsibilities of other branches of government are being usurped. See Ariz. Const, art. 3.
We note that the foregoing position is consistent with our court of appeals’ interpretation of the law as regards another statutory proceeding. There, the court in discussing the trial court’s granting of a motion to quash writs of garnishment, said:
“Nowhere in the statutory scheme promulgated by our legislature to govern garnishment proceedings (A.R.S. Sec. 12-1571 et seq.) is there an express provision allowing a defendant to in any manner traverse or controvert the statements made by a garnisher in the affidavit required by A.R.S. Sections 12-1571 and 12-1573.
“Further, it does not appear that there is any statute from which can be inferred the defendants’ right to controvert the plaintiff’s garnishment affidavit. There are, in fact, contrary implications to be found in the statutory scheme. A. R.S. Sections 12-1571 and 12-1574 indicate that merely upon the plaintiff’s making and filing the requisite affidavit the writ of garnishment ‘shall’ issue. In our opinion it is clear that the legislature intended that the writ issue upon the filing of the affidavit of garnishment rather than upon proving the truth of the allegations made therein. Cf. Arnold v. Knettle, 10 Ariz.App. 509, 460 P.2d 45 (1969).” Andrew Brown Co. v. Painters Warehouse, Inc., 11 Ariz.App. 571, 572-573, 466 P.2d 790, 791-792 (1970).
The majority makes much of the fact that lis pendens has early common law beginnings, but I am not impressed. It is now a statutory remedy enacted into law by our legislature, and I differ with my colleagues who call it fundamentally procedural. Apparently from now on litigants can find relief from any of the burdens of statutory proceedings by going to the courts with a motion to quash.
As a final word, I must point out that the issue of irreparable financial loss to respondents is very much in dispute, and I do not find the fact situation as sanguine as painted in the majority opinion. Even if the facts portrayed are true, I do not want to see another hard case make bad law.
A fact to be noted is that the lis pendens statute has been in effect in Arizona since *387territorial days, § 1318, RS, 1901, and yet this is a case of first impression. Resort to the courts or the legislature on this point was not found necessary in times past.
The action of the trial court in granting the motion to quash the lis pendens was clearly without authority in law, and therefore, I dissent.