Contempo-Tempe Mobile Home Owners Ass'n v. Steinert

Decision Date17 January 1985
Docket NumberCA-CIV,CONTEMPO-TEMPE,D,I-X,I-
PartiesMOBILE HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION, a non-profit association and Central Arizona Mobile Home Owners Association, an Arizona non-profit corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Marvin E. STEINERT and Jane Doe Steinert, husband and wife; Marvin E. Steinert, individually and dba Contempo/Tempe Adult Mobile Home Community; Ann McAnelly and John Doe McAnelly, husband and wife; and John Does, and Black Corporations, Defendants-Appellees. 16961.
CourtArizona Court of Appeals
Creasy & Skivington by Frederick C. Creasy, Jr., Scottsdale, for plaintiffs-appellants
OPINION

GRANT, Judge.

The only issue on appeal is whether the appellant associations have standing to sue for themselves and/or for the benefit of their individual members. However, since we conclude that the case is moot, there is no case or controversy before this court and therefore we dismiss the appeal.

The facts of this case are as follows: A complaint was filed against the operators of a mobile home park (appellees) by the tenants association and another association made up of numerous tenant associations (appellants). The appellants' complaint sought an injunction to prevent the appellees from using a particular rental agreement which increased the monthly rent and damages for their failure to negotiate a rental agreement in good faith. The trial court found that the appellants lacked standing to bring the suit. The trial court granted a motion to dismiss for lack of standing but granted leave to amend the complaint to name the individual tenants. An amended complaint brought in the name of the individual tenants was filed. Thereafter the individual tenants and the appellees entered into a stipulation that the matter be dismissed with prejudice. The trial court entered an order pursuant to the stipulation dismissing the case with prejudice.

Thereafter the appellants filed an appeal from the court's original ruling which had dismissed the complaint for lack of standing. However since the substantive questions raised have already been resolved by the stipulation dismissing the suit with prejudice, the appellants would not be entitled to any substantive relief on appeal. Therefore the case is moot, there is no case or controversy before this court and the appellants are merely seeking an advisory opinion concerning their capacity to sue for violations of the Arizona Mobile Home Parks Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. A.R.S. § 33-1401 et seq.

The court is not empowered to decide moot questions or abstract propositions. Article III of the United States Constitution limits the exercise of judicial power by federal courts to circumstances involving a "case" or "controversy." North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 92 S.Ct. 402, 30 L.Ed.2d 413 (1971). Moot cases do not fit within the constitutional definition of "cases" or "controversies." Central Soya Co., Inc. v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 614 F.2d 684 (7th Cir.1980). A case is moot when it seeks to determine an abstract question which does not arise upon existing facts or rights. Freeman v. Wintroath Pumps-Division of Worthington Corporation, 13 Ariz.App. 182, 475 P.2d 274 (1970); J.R. Francis Construction Company v. Pima County, 1 Ariz.App. 429, 403 P.2d 934 (1965). See 6(A) J. Moore, W. Taggart & J. Wicker, Moore's Federal Practice p 57. 13 (2d ed. 1981).

The Arizona Supreme Court summarized the law in Arizona concerning mootness in Fraternal Order of Police v. Phoenix Employee Relations Board, 133 Ariz. 126, 650 P.2d 428 (1982) as follows:

Unlike the federal court system, the powers of which are limited by U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2, cl. 1, our state court system has no constitutional provision constraining it to consider only "cases" or "controversies." Nevertheless, since the first time we considered the issue, our court has consistently held that it will refrain from considering moot or abstract questions. See Mesa Mail Publishing Co. v. Board of Supervisors, 26 Ariz. 521, 227 P. 572 (1924); Camerena v. Department of Public Welfare, 106 Ariz. 30, 470 P.2d 111 (1970). We will make an exception, however, to consider a question of great public importance or one which is likely to recur even though the question is presented in a moot case. Camerena, supra; State v. Superior Court, 104 Ariz. 440, 454 P.2d 982 (1969); see Wise v. First National Bank of Nogales, 49 Ariz. 146, 65 P.2d 1154 (1937).

Id. at 127, 650 P.2d at 429.

The appellants here ask the court to resolve the abstract question of whether associations of mobile home tenants have standing to sue for themselves and/or for the benefit of their individual members for violations of the Arizona Mobile Home Parks Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. This question does not arise upon existing facts or rights because the substantive questions raised have already been resolved by the stipulation dismissing the suit with prejudice. The case is moot.

In Webber v. Smith, 129 Ariz. 495, 632 P.2d 998 (App.1981) the court held that a counterclaim for the value of a motorcycle and truck held by the plaintiff was moot when the defendant had recovered possession of these items from the plaintiff and did not seek damages for loss of use during the period of the time that the items were held. In State Farm Automobile Insurance Company v. Civil Service Employees Insurance Company, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
50 cases
  • Simpson v. Owens
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • February 26, 2004
    ...now been allowed bail, making his question a moot issue that we usually would not consider, Contempo-Tempe Mobile Home Owners Ass'n v. Steinert, 144 Ariz. 227, 229, 696 P.2d 1376, 1378 (App.1985), we may continue to "consider an appeal that has become moot if there is either an issue of gre......
  • Filer v. Tohono O'Odham Nation Gaming
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • February 28, 2006
    ...to the State of Arizona to enforce its dram shop statute against the Gaming Enterprise. See Contempo-Tempe Mobile Home Owners Ass'n v. Steinert, 144 Ariz. 227, 229, 696 P.2d 1376, 1378 (App.1985) ("The court is not empowered to decide . . . abstract 8. As does the Gaming Enterprise, we ques......
  • Workman v. Verde Wellness Ctr., Inc.
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • October 18, 2016
    ...litigation into “an abstract question which does not arise upon existing facts or rights.” Contempo–Tempe Mobile Home Owners Ass'n v. Steinert , 144 Ariz. 227, 229, 696 P.2d 1376, 1378 (App. 1985) ; see Arpaio v. Maricopa Cty. Bd. of Supervisors , 225 Ariz. 358, ¶ 7, 238 P.3d 626, 629 (App.......
  • Office of Hawaiian Affairs v. State, No. 26615 (HI 9/9/2005)
    • United States
    • Hawaii Supreme Court
    • September 9, 2005
    ...250, 289 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 813 N.E.2d 229 (2004); see also Contempo-Tempe Mobile Home Owners Ass'n v. Steinert, 696 P.2d 1376, 1378 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985) (noting that appellate courts do not act as "fountain[s] of legal advice") (citation omitted). In f......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT