Understanding a Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement in Arizona

Q: Purpose of a Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement

In the state of Arizona, a motion to enforce judgment is a legal remedy sought by a prevailing party in a civil case when the opposing party fails to comply with a court-ordered judgment. This motion is typically filed in state court civil proceedings to ensure that the terms of a judgment are adhered to and enforced. Upon the successful prosecution of a civil lawsuit, a judgment is rendered by the court, outlining the rights and obligations of the parties involved. However, if the losing party neglects or refuses to comply with the terms of the judgment, the prevailing party may file a motion to enforce the judgment, seeking the court's assistance in compelling compliance.

Purpose of a Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement

A Court of Appeals in Arizona “reviews the grant of a motion to enforce a settlement using the same standards as employed for summary judgment.“ (Win Invs. LLC v. Segal, No. 1 CA-CV 18-0646, at *4 [Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 24, 2019] citing Robertson v. Alling, 237 Ariz. 345, 347 ¶ 8 [2015].) “Under that standard, [the court] must determine de novo whether the trial court correctly applied the law and whether any genuine disputes of material fact exist.“ (Win Invs. LLC, supra, Dayka & Hackett, LLC v. Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc., 228 Ariz. 533, 536 ¶ 6 [App. 2012].)

‘Law of the Case’ and Enforcement of Judgment

“‘Law of the case’ is a judicial doctrine that precludes the reconsideration of questions that have been resolved by the court or an appellate court.” (Ehlers v. Tannin Media Grp., Inc., 1 CA-CV 11-0049, at *5-6 [Ariz. Ct. App. May 3, 2012] citing Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II, 176 Ariz. 275, 278, 860 P.2d 1328, 1331 [App. 1993].) “When applied to decisions made by a trial court, it is a procedural doctrine and not a limitation on the court's power.” (Id.) “The court continues to have jurisdiction to review and reconsider prior decisions that are not final.” (Bogard v. Cannon & Wendt Elec. Co. , 221 Ariz. 325, 333, ¶ 26, 212 P.3d 17, 25 [App. 2009]; Zimmerman v. Shakman, 204 Ariz. 231, 236, ¶ 15, 62 P.3d 976, 981 [App. 2003].) “The court, however, does not have jurisdiction to reconsider or change prior decisions that have become final.” (Bogard, 221 Ariz. at 333, ¶ 26, 212 P.3d at 25.)

Current as of April 30, 2024 | Updated by Trellis Law Content Team

The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information and is subject to change without notice.

st up-to-date legal or other information and is subject to change without notice.

Dockets for Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement in Arizona

Sort By

FC2023-051881

Filed

Jul 11, 2023

Judge

Hon. Woo, Cassie 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Woo, Cassie

Court

Maricopa County

County

Maricopa County, AZ

Case #