IRONWOOD COMMONS COMMUNITY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC, Plaintiff/Appellee,
SHANNON K. RANDALL, Defendant/Appellant.
from the Superior Court in Maricopa County TJ 2014-002225.
The Honorable David W. Garbarino, Commissioner.
Dessaules Law Group, Phoenix By Douglas C. Wigley, Jonathan
A. Dessaules Counsel for Defendant/Appellant
Maxwell & Morgan PC, Mesa By B. Austin Baillio, Rebecca
L. Easton, Chad M. Gallacher Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee
Michael J. Brown delivered the opinion of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones and Judge Jon W. Thompson
Shannon K. Randall appeals the trial court's ruling that
an affidavit of renewal filed in the superior court of the
county in which a transcript of a justice court judgment was
docketed, instead of in the superior court of the county in
which the judgment was obtained, complied with statutory
renewal requirements. She also challenges the court's
award of post-judgment attorneys' fees and costs. For the
following reasons, we affirm the ruling that the judgment was
properly renewed and the award of costs for the subsequent
garnishment proceeding. We vacate, however, the award of
attorneys' fees and remand for further proceedings.
In 2011, the Casa Grande Justice Court (Pinal County) entered
judgment in favor of Ironwood Commons Community Homeowners
Association, Inc. ("Ironwood") and against Randall
in the amount of $4, 089.05 arising from her delinquent
assessments. The judgment included a clause purporting to
award attorneys' fees and costs incurred in collecting
the judgment. In 2014, Ironwood filed a transcript of
judgment in the Maricopa County Superior Court and two days
later recorded the judgment, also in Maricopa County.
To prevent the judgment from lapsing, Ironwood filed an
affidavit of judgment renewal in the Maricopa County Superior
Court in 2016, stating that the justice court judgment
"ha[d] not been recorded or docketed in any other
county." Ironwood then filed an application for
garnishment, a post-judgment statement of costs, and an
application for post-judgment attorneys' fees. The clerk
of the court issued a writ of garnishment, and the trial
court awarded attorneys' fees ($1, 130) and costs
Randall moved to quash the writ of garnishment, arguing
execution on the judgment was prohibited under Arizona
Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") section 12-1551(B)
because the judgment was not properly renewed. Randall also
filed a motion to vacate the award of attorneys' fees and
costs, asserting the award was not grounded in any statutory
or contractual provision and the justice court judgment was
invalid. Ironwood opposed both motions and also filed an
application for order of continuing lien against
Randall's non-exempt earnings, which the court granted.
During oral argument on the motions, Randall argued the
justice court judgment expired because the affidavit of
renewal should have been filed in the Pinal County Superior
Court to give her proper notice. The trial court rejected the
argument and, citing A.R.S. § 33-962(A) and §
12-1612(A), ruled that the "proper court" for
filing a renewal affidavit was "the court where the
judgment was docketed," which in this case was the
Maricopa County Superior Court. The court upheld its previous
award of attorneys' fees and costs to Ironwood and this
timely appeal followed.
Proper Court for Judgment Renewal
Randall contends the justice court judgment cannot be
enforced against her because it was not renewed in accordance
with A.R.S. § 12-1612. We review issues requiring
statutory interpretation de novo. State ex rel. Indus.
Comm'n of Ariz. v. Galloway,224 Ariz. 325, 327,
¶ 7 (App. 2010). When interpreting statutes, we will
"effectuate the text if it is clear and
unambiguous." BSI Holdings, LLC v. Ariz. Dep't
of Transp.,244 Ariz. 17, 19, ¶ 9 (2018). "In
construing a specific provision, we look to the statute as a
whole and we may also consider statutes that are in pari
materia- of the same subject ...