Sigmund v. Rea
226 Ariz. 373
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Plaintiffs AscenZ Friction & Booher sued Missouri residents Steven Sigmund, Jack Sigmund, and Thomas Ratz (Husbands) and the Wives in Arizona for misrepresentations in 2008 arising from their business dealings.
- Wives are Missouri residents with no Arizona contacts, no ownership of Arizona property, no participation in the transactions, and no pleaded conduct by Wives beyond being named in the caption.
- Trial court denied Wives' motions to dismiss, treating Missouri tenancy-by-the-entirety as creating a basis for jurisdiction over Wives based on the Husbands' conduct.
- Arizona Court of Appeals addresses whether Rollins v. Vidmar extends to a state (Missouri) that does not recognize community property; the record shows no Missouri analog for a marital community liability.
- Court determines Missouri law does not create a community liability; unilateral actions of one spouse cannot bind the other in entirety property, so Wives lack minimum contacts with Arizona.
- Consequently, Arizona cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over Wives; the special action is granted and Wives' motions to dismiss are affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Arizona may exercise jurisdiction over Wives without minimum contacts. | Wives benefited from Husbands' transactions via a marital community. | Missouri lacks a marital community liability; unilateral spouse actions cannot bind Wives. | No jurisdiction; lack of minimum contacts forecloses jurisdiction. |
| Does Rollins extend to Missouri, a non-community property state? | Rollins supported jurisdiction based on the community's contacts with the forum. | Rollins does not apply where Missouri lacks a comparable community property concept. | Rollins does not authorize jurisdiction over Wives under Missouri law. |
| Is agency or binding effect by marital status sufficient for jurisdiction? | Marital status could imply agency or bound liability for Wives. | Missouri law does not infer agency from marriage; unilateral acts cannot bind entirety property. | No agency or binding effect; lacking jurisdiction over Wives. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rollins v. Vidmar, 147 Ariz. 494, 711 P.2d 633 (App. 1985) (recognized community liability for marital communities in a different context)
- Williams v. Lakeview Co., 199 Ariz. 1, 13 P.3d 280 (2000) (due process and minimum contacts standard)
- Lorenz-Auxier Fin. Group, Inc. v. Bidewell, 160 Ariz. 218, 772 P.2d 41 (App. 1989) (property rights governed by domicile law at acquisition)
- Garner, 952 F.2d 232 (8th Cir. 1991) (Missouri law on community and entirety property; agency not presumed)
- Niehaus v. Mitchell, 417 S.W.2d 509 (Mo. Ct. App. 1967) (tenancy by the entirety concept and binding rights)
- Hanebrink v. Tower Grove Bank & Trust Co., 321 S.W.2d 524 (Mo. Ct. App. 1959) (mechanics of entirety property and limits of unilateral actions)
- Cohn v. Dwyer, 959 S.W.2d 839 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997) (distinguishes marital relationship from agency relationships)