Mothershead v. Dulara, 1 CA-CV 19-0111

In 2015 Mothershead sued multiple Dulara-related defendants for breach of contract; a June 2017 settlement/judgment awarded Mothershead $194,000 against Dulara Automotive Group, LLC and Big Bell Auto Superstore.
In December 2018 Mothershead served writs of garnishment on bank accounts in the names of Dulara Automotive, Aslam Dulara, and nonparties Iqbal Dulara and Dulara Enterprises LLC to collect the judgment.
Iqbal Dulara and Dulara Enterprises moved to quash the writs, arguing they were nonparties and the writs were improper; they requested an immediate hearing.
Mothershead responded alleging the accounts held funds fraudulently transferred from a judgment debtor, submitted exhibits, and argued at a hearing but did not present witness testimony or other evidentiary proof of transfers.
The superior court held a nearly one-hour hearing, declined testimony (but heard argument and considered exhibits), granted the motion to quash, and later awarded appellees costs and attorney’s fees under § 12-1580(E).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Mothershead was denied due process because the court admitted no witness testimony	Mothershead: denial of testimony = denial of meaningful opportunity to be heard	Appellees: hearing and opportunity to present exhibits/argument satisfied process	Court: No due process violation; argument and exhibits at a meaningful hearing sufficed
Whether the motion to quash / court order lacked legal reasoning	Mothershead: motion and order gave no legal reason, so ruling was arbitrary	Appellees: motion and court articulated due process/fairness grounds; nonparty status supports quash	Court: Motion and order contained legal reasons (due process/fairness); ruling not an abuse of discretion
Whether garnishment was proper absent evidence of fraudulent transfer into appellees’ accounts	Mothershead: funds were fraudulently transferred into appellees’ accounts, so garnishment proper	Appellees: were nonparties and no evidence showed they held judgment debtor’s funds	Court: Motherhead failed to provide evidence of transfers; quash affirmed

Comeau v. Arizona State Board of Dental Examiners, 196 Ariz. 102 (App. 1999) (defines procedural due process as meaningful opportunity to be heard and recognizes flexible protections based on case practicalities)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (establishes balancing test for procedural due process)
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (due process must account for "practicalities and peculiarities" of a case)
Cota v. Southern Arizona Bank & Trust Co., 17 Ariz. App. 326 (1972) (standard of review for garnishment proceedings)
Dowling v. Stapley, 221 Ariz. 251 (App. 2009) (abuse of discretion occurs when no evidence supports a holding or court commits legal error)
Adams v. Valley National Bank of Arizona, 139 Ariz. 340 (App. 1984) (appellate courts prefer deciding cases on merits despite procedural briefing defects)