 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Barlage v. Valentine4/27/2005
ere not required under the circumstances presented here, the facts set forth in her affidavit, even if true, are immaterial and insufficient to rebut the presumption of effective mail service under Rule 4.2(c). Therefore, the trial court erred in setting aside the default judgment based on service and jurisdictional grounds.
Finally, we note that Valentine also sought relief pursuant to Rule 60(c), Ariz. R. Civ. P., 16 A.R.S., Pt. 2. In view of its ruling on service, the trial court did not expressly evaluate or rule on the various factors under Rule 60(c). Resolution of any such issues is best left to the trial court in the first instance. See Koven, 128 Ariz. at 324, 625 P.2d at 913. We therefore remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
DISPOSITION
The order vacating the default judgment in favor of Barlage is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
JOHN PELANDER, Chief Judge
CONCURRING:
PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Judge
JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Judge
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Arizona DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|