Hubbard v. Superior Court of Maricopa County
Cited by
Explained in 1
- Aileen H. Char Life Interest v. Maricopa County 93 P.3d 486 Ariz. 2004
- Medasys Acquisition Corp. v. SDMS, P.C. 55 P.3d 763 Ariz. 2002
- Aida Renta Trust v. Department of Revenue 3 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
- Tucson Mechanical Contracting, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 854 P.2d 1162 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
- Wyatt v. Wehmueller 806 P.2d 870 Ariz. 1991
- Hibbs v. Calcot, Ltd. 801 P.2d 445 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
- Landin v. Ford 727 P.2d 331 Ariz. 1986
- Jacobs v. Farmland Mutual Insurance Co. 377 N.W.2d 441 Minn. 1985
- Berry v. McLeod 604 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1979
- Fousel v. Ted Walker Mobile Homes, Inc. 602 P.2d 507 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
- Parks v. MacRo-dynamics, Inc. 591 P.2d 1005 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
- Honeywell Information Systems, Inc. v. Maricopa County 575 P.2d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Starkovich v. Noye 111 Ariz. 347
- Jennings v. Lee 105 Ariz. 167
- Craviolini v. Scholer & Fuller Associated Architects 101 Ariz. 33
- Jacob v. Miner 67 Ariz. 109
Opinion text
PER CURIAM. Petitioners commenced a civil action in the Superior Court of Maricopa County alleging they were fraudulently induced to convey real property. In Count One of their complaint they sought rescission of a deed based on fraud. In Count Two they sought punitive damages against certain of the defendants. The Superior Court ordered the claim for punitive damages stricken. This special action seeks to restore petitioners’ claim for punitive damages. The issue is whether petitioners can have both a rescission and punitive damages. Punitive damages may be recovered in Arizona in an equitable action where actual damages are proved. Starkovich v. Noye, 111 Ariz. 347 , 529 P.2d 698 (1974). However, a party who has been defrauded is put to an election of remedies. He may either affirm the contract and sue for damages or rescind the contract and return the parties to the status quo ante. He cannot do both. Jennings v. Lee, 105 Ariz. 167 , 461 P.2d 161 (1969). It is settled in Arizona that actual damages must be established as a predicate for recovery of punitive damages. Craviolini v. Scholer and Fuller, etc., 101 Ariz. 33 , 415 P.2d 456 (1956); Jacob v. Miner, 67 Ariz. 109 , 191 P.2d 734 (1948). We are not convinced that we should depart from the holdings of our former decisions. Petitioners’ prayer for relief is denied.