Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
State v. Brown
Citations: 173 Ariz. 104; 840 P.2d 280Docket: Nos. 2 CA-SA 92-0026, 2 CA-SA 92-0042
Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona; April 21, 1992; Arizona; State Appellate Court
The consolidated special actions present the issue of whether the superior court has jurisdiction over forfeiture proceedings initiated by the state under A.R.S. 13-4301 et seq. for property valued at $5,000 or less. This matter, a question of law unaffected by disputed facts, is of first impression and statewide significance. The court accepts jurisdiction but ultimately declines relief. In case 2 CA-SA 92-0026, a 1972 Ford Mustang was seized for in rem forfeiture, with the respondent judge acknowledging its value as less than $5,000, a fact not contested by the parties. In case 2 CA-SA 92-0042, $1,721 in cash was seized, and the claimant relinquished his interest, leading the state to seek forfeiture. The respondent dismissed both actions, citing lack of jurisdiction due to the property’s value being $5,000 or less, based on recent amendments to statutory and constitutional provisions regarding jurisdiction. The Arizona Constitution permits the jurisdiction of justice courts, which was raised from $2,500 to $10,000 in 1990. Consequently, the legislature increased the exclusive jurisdictional limit of justice courts to $5,000. Under A.R.S. 22-201, justices of the peace have exclusive original jurisdiction for civil actions involving $5,000 or less. Meanwhile, the superior court's jurisdiction, as outlined in Article 6, Section 14, includes cases not exclusively vested in other courts, equity and law cases involving real property, and other matters where the property's value is $1,000 or more. A.R.S. 13-4302 allows the state to initiate forfeiture proceedings in the superior court if the property is located within the state or if the court has in personam jurisdiction over the property interest holder. The respondent contends that while A.R.S. 13-4302 grants the superior court permissive jurisdiction, A.R.S. 22-201(B) mandatorily restricts it in cases involving $5,000 or less. The court concurs with this interpretation. The state argues that A.R.S. 22-201(B) does not clearly divest superior court jurisdiction over forfeiture actions, citing the presumption favoring superior court jurisdiction and referencing Daou v. Harris. The state contrasts A.R.S. 22-201(B) with A.R.S. 8-202(A), which explicitly grants exclusive original jurisdiction to juvenile courts, asserting that A.R.S. 22-201(B) lacks similar clarity. The court finds no significant distinction between the two statutes. Additionally, it notes that prior rulings have interpreted earlier versions of similar statutes as limiting superior court jurisdiction in civil cases under $200, as established in Ahee v. Sornberger. The court also dismisses the state’s claim that A.R.S. 22-201(B) is restricted to cases seeking monetary judgments and clarifies that references to the superior court in forfeiture statutes do not imply exclusive jurisdiction. The court concludes that the legislature did not need to amend existing statutes to confer jurisdiction to justice courts, as different provisions have been enacted for specific cases in other sections of A.R.S. 22-201. Ultimately, the court finds A.R.S. 22-201(B) to be clear, unambiguous, and comprehensive, upholding the dismissal of complaints. Furthermore, the state’s challenge regarding a notice of change of judge is deemed abandoned due to a lack of compliance with procedural requirements.