855 F. Supp. 2d 948
D. Ariz.2012Background
- Fidelity obtained an $8.5 million California judgment against the Friedmans in 2002 and registered it in Arizona that same year; Fidelity later asserted this Arizona judgment was renewed by multiple filings, including a 2007 Certification and a 2008 renewal affidavit.
- The Arizona court previously held Fidelity renewed the Arizona judgment under A.R.S. § 12-1611 by treating collection actions and a related RICO action as an “action thereon.”
- The Arizona Supreme Court later held renewal requires a specific form of renewal by affidavit or a common law action on the judgment, not merely related collection efforts, and renewal must be timely under § 12-1612(B).
- The Friedmans challenged the 2007 Certification as not being a proper renewal affidavit and argued it was premature; Fidelity argued the 2007 Certification plus a 2008 affidavit cured any defects.
- The court held Fidelity’s 2007 Certification was not a valid renewal affidavit and was filed prematurely; the 2008 Additional Renewal Affidavit could not cure the deficiencies, and Fidelity failed to timely re-register the California judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1963 or renew under Arizona law; the judgment was not revived.
- The court ultimately entered an order quashing Fidelity’s 2007 Certification as a renewal and vacating Fidelity’s renewal/registration documents in this case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2007 Certification constituted a renewal affidavit under § 12-1612(B). | Fidelity contends the 2007 Certification acted as a renewal affidavit. | Friedmans argue it was not a proper renewal affidavit due to mislabeling and missing statutory details. | No; 2007 Certification did not satisfy § 12-1612(B) as a renewal affidavit. |
| Whether the 2007 Certification was timely filed. | Fidelity asserts timing was immaterial due to notice via subsequent events. | Timeliness is strict under Arizona law and the filing occurred well before the 90-day window. | No; the filing was premature and outside the 90-day window. |
| Whether the 2008 Additional Renewal Affidavit could cure the 2007 deficiencies. | The 2008 affidavit cures defects in the 2007 Certification. | Cannot cure under § 12-1612(E) because there was no valid prior renewal affidavit. | No; it cannot cure a defective or untimely renewal. |
| Whether Fidelity could rely on a 2007 second registration under § 1963 to continue enforcement. | Registration under § 1963 permitted a second registration within the same forum. | Second registration in the same district is not warranted; conflicts with renewal under Arizona law. | No; re-registration did not save the enforcement where renewal under state law failed. |
| Whether the accrual period for the § 12-544(3) four-year statute of limitations was correctly calculated. | Finality/enforceability date should start when the underlying judgment becomes final in the rendering state. | Finality/enforceability must follow federal procedural rules; Day is inapplicable here. | No; accrual did not permit timely renewal or re-registration; the four-year period expired. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fidelity Nat’l Fin., Inc. v. Friedman, 225 Ariz. 307 (Ariz. 2010) (Arizona Supreme Court clarifies renewal by affidavit and timing requirements under § 12-1612(B))
- Fidelity Nat’l Fin. Inc. v. Friedman, 402 F. App’x 194 (9th Cir. 2010) (Federal mandate on renewal and registration interactions (Fidelity IV))
- Day v. Wiswall, 11 Ariz. App. 306 (Ariz. App. 1970) (Accrual of § 12-544(3) based on finality under state law (California code))
- Galloway, 224 Ariz. 325 (Ariz. App. 2010) (Strict timeliness and notice requirements for renewal affidavits under § 12-1612(B))
- Fay v. Harris, 64 Ariz. 10 (Ariz. 1945) (Noting that minor defects in renewal affidavits may not defeat renewal)
- Triple E. Produce Corp. v. Valencia, 170 Ariz. 375 (Ariz. App. 1991) (Flawed renewal affidavits may not defeat renewal if essential information is present)
- Weltsch v. O’Brien, 25 Ariz. App. 50 (Ariz. App. 1975) (Omissions may be nonfatal if notice is preserved)
- Mobile Discount Corp. v. Hargus, 156 Ariz. 559 (Ariz. App. 1988) (Guides timing for successive renewal affidavits under § 12-1612(E))
- Hilao v. Estate of Marcos, 536 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 2008) (Registration under § 1963 has functional effects of new judgment; enforceable as in state forum)