The defendant challenged the certification of the complaint as being insufficient in that the elements and facts asserted were not verified prior to the complaint's being signed and certified. The defendant, Michele Powers, acting pro per, cross-examined the State's witness as to the facts of the filing of the complaint but the Star Valley Court found her responsible. She appealed and Judge Peter J. Cahill of the Gila County Superior Court overturned the trial court's judgment finding that the complaint was not properly certified. The judge also commented on the presentation of evidence by the State.
The defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss to contest jurisdiction saying that the ticket was not properly filed. At the hearing a police aide, who did not sign the complaint, testified that the name of the registered owner was checked and it matched a general description. The court found Gutenkauf reponsible at a hearing. The appeals court reversed and said that the Tempe court should have dismissed the case. The court decided that no reasonable grounds existed to issue the complaint because the procedure does not provide an adequate basis of determining whether a registered owner was the actual driver.
The court mailed a ticket to Ms. James who hired attorney Smith. Smith filed a Limited Notice of Appearance and a Motion to Dismiss to contest jurisdiction saying that the ticket was not properly filed and that his client had not been served. The court denied the motion and Ms. James was found reponsible at a hearing. The court said that when her attorney made an appearance to contest jurisdiction, Ms. James had accepted service. The appeals court said that only a signed waiver of service or actual service by a process server is valid and dismissed the ticket. The appeals court said that the court MUST have proof of service. Lower court REVERSED on appeal.
Ken Lind appealed this case himself when he learned EIGHT years after the ticket was filed that he had been defaulted. Scottsdale Court notified MVD eight years after the ticket to suspend his license! Mr. Lind asked the court to set aside the default judgment it had entered against him and also asked to see proof of service, also known as a Declaration of Service. The court did not have the Declaration of Service even though its notes said he had been served. Mr. Lind advised the court that he had not been served however the judge would not set aside his default judgment. Mr. Lind appealed and won! The appeals court said that the court MUST have proof of service before entering a judgment. Lower court REVERSED on appeal.
There is nothing like being prepared
when you go to court! Read winning cases where the Superior Court
has told a city court that it was CLEARLY WRONG! From faulty
tickets to faulty service, you'll find examples here.
CLICK ON THE PDF ICON or THE WORD NEW NEXT TO
THE CASE YOU WANT TO READ. NEW 2011 DECISION! LOOK FOR
Appeal
from Scottsdale City Court -Decided
May, 2008-
SERVICE IMPROPER. Driver who showed the age listed on the Declaration of Service was not the same as her age and the time the ticket was served was 11:25 p.m. met the burden of showing that service was not made. Lower court REVERSED on appeal.
Fine reversed/Cost of service of process reversed
Defendant represented herself.
Appeal
from Scottsdale City Court -Decided
April, 2007-
YET AGAIN the Superior Court has to remind Scottsdale that a ticket sent in the mail has NOT been legally served, not even if you call the court about it. Lower court REVERSED on appeal.
Fine reversed/Cost of service of process reversed
Defendant was represented by attorney Brett Rigg.
Appeal
from Scottsdale City Court -Decided
June, 2006-
Computer-generated ticket not enough to grant jurisdiction without proof of identification of driver. Redflex didn't review the ticket before the computer signed it so it is illegal. Lower court REVERSED on appeal.
Fine reversed/Cost of service of process reversed
Defendant handled the appeal without an attorney.
Appeal
from Scottsdale City Court -Decided
June, 2007-
CRUISE CONTROL not enough to win a case, necessarily, if the trial judge doesn't believe you! Read this case for the details! Lower court AFFIRMED on appeal.
Appeal
from Phoenix City Court -Decided
May, 2006-
Computer-generated ticket not enough to grant jurisdiction without proof of identification of driver. Without identifying testimony or presence of defendant, there was not sufficient evidence for judgment. (This is different from challenging jurisdiction. This case challenged the sufficiency of the evidence) Lower court REVERSED on appeal.
Fine reversed/Cost of service of process reversed
Attorney for Defendant on Appeal: David Burnell Smith
Appeal
from Scottsdale Court -Decided
May, 2006-
Court abused its discretion in failing to set aside default when defendant tried to resolve the matter and was not the driver. The Scottsdale court's decision was "unsupported by facts or any sound legal policy." Court should have set aside judgment when asked.
Lower court REVERSED on appeal.
Fine reversed/Cost of service of process reversed
Appeal
from Scottsdale Court -Decided
April, 2006-
Court was manifestly unjust to refuse to set aside default when defendant not the driver and when service of process was not made properly, but was made upon his father. On appeal, the prosecutor admitted/conceded that the defendant was not the driver. Lower court REVERSED on appeal.
Fine reversed/Cost of service of process reversed
Appeal
from Scottsdale Court -Decided
March, 2006-
The
ticketed person was wrongly defaulted. The court should have
accepted her information that she was not the driver. The court
was wrong to refuse to set aside default. After the
appeal, Scottsdale dismissed the case.
Fine reversed: $228.00
Cost of service of process reversed: $26.00
Appeal
from Scottsdale Court -Decided
March, 2006-
Court was wrong to default defendant.
Service of process was faulty. Process server failed to give
summons to defendant. Court was wrong to send collection
letter. Court should have set aside judgment when asked.
After appeal, Scottsdale dismissed the case.
Fine reversed: $228.00
Cost of service of process reversed: $26.00
Appeal
from Scottsdale Court -Decided
March, 2006-
Service
of process invalid: leaving papers at door improper. Description
of person served as "white female" is also insufficient service.
Process server must give reasons to believe person is in the home. Default improper. Appeal court voided
judgment and ordered Scottsdale Court to dismiss the case.
Fine reversed: $Amount unknown
Cost of service of process reversed: $26.00
Attorney for Defendant on Appeal: John P. Ager
Appeal
from Scottsdale Court -Decided
February 2006-
Manifest injustice resulting from Scottsdale
Court's failure to set aside default. Defendant had moved and
process server gave papers to her 17-year-old sister. MALE driver
showed in photo radar picture. Attorney for State filed brief admitting
defendant was NOT the driver. Certification of ticket could not
have been valid. Appeal court ordered Scottsdale to dismiss the ticket.
Fine reversed: $296.00
Cost of service of process reversed: $17.00
Appeal
from Scottsdale Court -Decided
February 2006-
Defendant was out of the country on the day
the process server swore he served him. Court was wrong in not
setting aside default. Appeal court ordered default judgment set aside.
Fine reversed: $256.00
Cost of service of process reversed: $18.00
