Kondaur Capital Corp. v. Pinal County
235 Ariz. 189
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Kondaur purchased a Pinal County residential property at trustee’s sale after occupants (the Whites) failed to vacate.
- Kondaur obtained judgment and a writ of restitution; served both on Pinal County Sheriff’s Office (PCSO) for enforcement.
- PCSO delayed enforcement; Kondaur amended its forcible detainer action to add a declaratory judgment claim seeking guidance on sheriff enforcement duties and related eviction procedures.
- Trial court granted declaratory relief addressing seven specific eviction-related issues (timing to execute writs, service, additional time, mover/storage requirements, bankruptcy stays, writ expiration, obtaining new writs).
- On appeal Kondaur sought review of all issues, but the Court of Appeals limited review to the portions unfavorable to Kondaur (Issues 1, 5, and 7) and considered whether the appeal was moot after the Whites were evicted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When must PCSO execute a writ of restitution and remove occupants? | PCSO must enforce writ by end of next business day absent exigency. | PCSO has at least ten business days to serve and enforce a writ. | Moot; court would resolve by straightforward statutory interpretation, and issue lacks public-importance exception — appeal dismissed as moot. |
| Should PCSO refuse enforcement when informed of an automatic bankruptcy stay? | Kondaur argued sheriff should enforce despite occupant’s bankruptcy notice. | PCSO argued it may or should refrain from enforcement when informed of an automatic stay. | Moot; court declined review (no live controversy and exceptions to mootness inapplicable). |
| What is procedure to obtain a new writ of restitution if one expires? | Kondaur sought clear rules on writ expiration and obtaining replacement writs. | PCSO defended its procedural practices and timelines. | Moot; court declined to decide and dismissed appeal as moot. |
| Scope of appellate review / standing to appeal declaratory rulings | Kondaur sought review of all seven issues despite prevailing on some. | PCSO argued appellant must be "aggrieved" and cannot appeal favorable rulings. | Court limited appeal to only portions where Kondaur was aggrieved (Issues 1, 5, 7) and rejected Kondaur’s attempt to expand review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692 (2011) (limited exception allowing a prevailing party to seek review of adverse rulings in qualified-immunity context)
- Chambers v. United Farm Workers Organizing Comm., 25 Ariz. App. 104 (1975) (appellant must be a party aggrieved to invoke appellate jurisdiction)
- Bank of New York Mellon v. De Meo, 227 Ariz. 192 (App. 2011) (courts may hear moot issues if of great public importance or capable of repetition yet evading review)
- Cardoso v. Soldo, 230 Ariz. 614 (App. 2012) (public-importance exception to mootness reserved for issues with broad impact beyond the specific case)
- Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478 (1982) ("capable of repetition yet evading review" exception requires reasonable expectation the same controversy will recur)
- Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Molera, 200 Ariz. 457 (App. 2001) (application of mootness exceptions and evaluation of issues that may evade appellate review)