Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Wells v. Valley National Bank of Arizona, 509 P.2d 615.

30 citing documents.

Advanced Property Tax v. Jorge Othon and Spouse Ariz. 2023
Advanced Property Tax v. Jorge Othon and Spouse Ariz. 2023
¶24 “Regarding default judgments, the general rule is that if a court had no jurisdiction because of lack of proper service on the defendant, any judgment would be void.” Wells v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Ariz., (“If the court had no jurisdiction because of lack of proper service on the defendant any judgment would be void .
Legacy Foundation Action v. Citizens Clean Election Ariz. 2018
Legacy Foundation Action v. Citizens Clean Election Ariz. 2018
See Wells v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Ariz., (stating that “the mere lapse of time is no bar to an attack on a void judgment”); (observing that the “right to challenge a judgment on the ground that it is void for lack of jurisdiction .
Sprang v. Petersen Lumber, Inc. 798 P.2d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Sprang v. Petersen Lumber, Inc. 798 P.2d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
OMEGA II INVESTMENT COMPANY v. McLeod 736 P.2d 824 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
OMEGA II INVESTMENT COMPANY v. McLeod 736 P.2d 824 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Arkules v. BD. OF ADJUST. OF PARADISE VALLEY 728 P.2d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Arkules v. BD. OF ADJUST. OF PARADISE VALLEY 728 P.2d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Therefore, the effect of the void decision by the Board of Adjustment is the same as that of any void decision by a court: “the mere lapse of time does not bar an attack on a void judgment.”
Saucedo v. Engelbrecht 716 P.2d 79 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Saucedo v. Engelbrecht 716 P.2d 79 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Mervyn's, Inc. v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 697 P.2d 690 Ariz. 1985
Mervyn's, Inc. v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 697 P.2d 690 Ariz. 1985
3 Wells v. Valley Nat’l Bank
Gilbreath v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance 685 P.2d 729 Ariz. 1984
Gilbreath v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance 685 P.2d 729 Ariz. 1984
French v. Angelic 669 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
French v. Angelic 669 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Ineffective service of process would render the default judgment obtained on September 3,1980 void, -347 , -17 (1973); , thus, the question is whether service in this case was effective.
State v. Gallarzo 631 P.2d 533 Ariz. 1981
State v. Gallarzo 631 P.2d 533 Ariz. 1981
Freeland v. Green 601 P.2d 289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Freeland v. Green 601 P.2d 289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Price v. Sunmaster 558 P.2d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Price v. Sunmaster 558 P.2d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
our highest court stated: “.
Hatch v. Hatch 534 P.2d 295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Hatch v. Hatch 534 P.2d 295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
amending an “in personam” judgment to an “in rem” judgment was held to be an improper correction of a judicial error.
Walls v. Stewart Building & Roofing Supply, Inc. 531 P.2d 168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Walls v. Stewart Building & Roofing Supply, Inc. 531 P.2d 168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Brennan v. Western Savings and Loan Association 526 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Brennan v. Western Savings and Loan Association 526 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974