Ruiz v. Lopez
In Ruiz v. Lopez, 225 Ariz. 217, 220,12, 236 P.3d 444, 447 (App. 2010), the plaintiff mailed an application for entry of default to the defendant, who resided in a large apartment complex, but failed to include an apartment number in the mailing address. Id. at 223,11, 236 P.3d at 447.
The plaintiff asserted the notice complied with the requirements of Rule 55(a)(1)(i), which requires a moving party to mail a copy of the application for entry of default to the party claimed to be in default. Id.
The Court disagreed, holding that the application was unlikely to reach the defendant and thus violated the notice provisions of Rule 55(a)(1)(i). Id. at 220,15, 236 P.3d at 449.
As a result, we determined that the violation of Rule 55(a)(1)(i) rendered the resulting default judgment void because "Rule 55 . . . allows entry of default only upon adequate notice to the defaulting party." Id., 225 Ariz. 217 at18, 236 P.3d 444.
The Court therefore held that the trial court was required to set aside the judgment under Rule 60(c)(4). Id. at 223,21, 236 P.3d at 450.