M-11 Ltd. Partnership v. Gommard
235 Ariz. 166
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- ADOT administratively extinguished M-11’s title to a 1965 mobile home and awarded title to Daniel Gommard; final decision dated June 19, 2012 and mailed June 20, 2012.
- Under A.R.S. § 12-904(a), M-11 had 35 days from service (5 days after mailing) to file judicial review—making July 30, 2012 the deadline.
- M-11 signed and mailed its complaint for judicial review on July 18, 2012 and mailed a copy to ADOT; ADOT received its copy July 20, 2012.
- The superior court clerk’s file stamp shows the complaint was filed August 7, 2012, eight days after the statutory deadline.
- ADOT moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1); the superior court granted the motion based on the August 7 filing date and dismissed M-11’s action.
- M-11 argued the clerk’s August 7 date was a clerical error and sought relief under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 60(a); the superior court declined to apply Rule 60(a). M-11 appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the superior court had jurisdiction when the clerk’s file stamp shows an August 7 filing, after the July 30 deadline | M-11: Complaint was mailed timely (July 18) and should be deemed received/timely; clerk’s August 7 date is a clerical error correctable under Rule 60(a) | ADOT: Filing was August 7; timely filing under §12-904 is jurisdictional and cannot be extended; Rule 2 and statute preclude correcting to create jurisdiction | Court vacated dismissal and remanded, holding the superior court must apply Rule 60(a) to determine whether a clerical error occurred before resolving jurisdiction |
| Whether the common-law mail-delivery rule establishes the filing date for commencement of the action | M-11: Proof of mailing and receipt by ADOT supports that the complaint was received by the clerk before deadline | ADOT: Receipt by clerk controls; mail-delivery rule addresses receipt presumption but not when clerk received it | Court declined to rely on the mail-delivery rule here and held it did not resolve timing of clerk’s receipt |
| Whether Rule 60(a) can be used to correct a clerk’s filing date for jurisdictional purposes | M-11: Rule 60(a) authorizes correction of clerical mistakes in the record and triggers factfinding on whether an earlier receipt occurred | ADOT: Rule 60(a) cannot be used to grant jurisdiction the court never obtained; specific judicial-review rules/statute bar extending filing time | Court: Rule 60(a) applies to correct clerical errors in the record; the court has authority to determine and correct such errors and then decide jurisdiction |
| Whether the superior court erred by dismissing without resolving whether a clerical error existed | M-11: Dismissal premature without Rule 60(a) factfinding | ADOT: No jurisdiction to consider Rule 60(a) if filing untimely | Court: Superior court erred; must conduct Rule 60(a) factfinding to determine actual filing date before deciding jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Guminski v. Ariz. State Veterinary Med. Examining Bd., 201 Ariz. 180, 33 P.3d 514 (App. 2001) (timely filing under A.R.S. § 12-904 is jurisdictional)
- Lee v. State, 218 Ariz. 235, 182 P.3d 1169 (2008) (summarizes the common-law mail-delivery rule and its evidentiary effect)
- Crye v. Edwards, 178 Ariz. 327, 873 P.2d 665 (App. 1993) (documents delivered by mail are filed as of date of receipt by the clerk; Rule 60(a) factfinding may be required)
- Church of Isaiah 58 Project of Ariz., Inc. v. La Paz County, 233 Ariz. 460, 314 P.3d 806 (App. 2013) (standard of review for dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Schwab Sales, Inc. v. GN Const. Co., Inc., 196 Ariz. 33, 992 P.2d 1128 (App. 1998) (statutory and rule interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (a court must determine its own jurisdiction)
- Morgan v. Hays, 102 Ariz. 150, 426 P.2d 647 (1967) (state precedent that a court has authority to determine its jurisdiction)
- Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988) (a litigant who mails a notice of appeal bears the risk of untimely delivery)