Roddy v. County of Maricopa
| Decision Date | 23 January 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,CA-CV,1 |
| Citation | 911 P.2d 631,184 Ariz. 625 |
| Parties | David RODDY, a single man, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The COUNTY OF MARICOPA, a body politic; Maricopa Medical Center, an agency of the County of Maricopa, Defendants-Appellants. 94-0319. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
This appeal raises the issue whether the successful party to superior court litigation may be required to pay jury fees. We conclude that such an assessment is improper.
David Roddy filed a complaint in Maricopa County Superior Court against Maricopa County and other defendants alleging medical malpractice and negligence. The jury found in favor of all defendants. The court then entered judgment assessing jury fees and mileage of $2892.00 jointly and severally against Roddy and the defendants. On the county's motion to alter or amend the judgment for jury fees, the court prorated the fees; Roddy and each of the defendants were assessed $578.40. The county timely appealed. 1
The issue whether the superior court has discretion to order a successful party to pay any portion of the jury fees is a legal one regarding the interpretation and application of the statutes controlling the assessment of costs and jury fees. Accordingly, we conduct a de novo review. Hampton v. Glendale Union High School Dist., 172 Ariz. 431, 433, 837 P.2d 1166, 1168 (App.1992).
The superior court based its order regarding the payment of jury fees on Local Rule of Practice for the Maricopa County Superior Court ("Rule") 2.6(c) which states:
Except as otherwise provided by law, the parties may by agreement, subject to approval by the court, designate the party or parties against whom jury fees are to be assessed. If the parties fail to so designate, the court shall assess the jury fees equally against each side unless the court determines that the interests of justice require assessment of jury fees in some other manner.
The county submits that this local rule does not apply because statutes otherwise place the burden of paying jury fees on the unsuccessful party. It adds that the statutes must prevail over a conflicting court rule.
Arizona Revised Statutes Annotated ("A.R.S.") section 12-341 provides that "[t]he successful party to a civil action shall recover from his adversary all costs expended or incurred therein unless otherwise provided by law." This language is mandatory; the superior court has no discretion to deny costs to the successful party. Hooper v. Truly Nolen of America, 171 Ariz. 692, 695, 832 P.2d 709, 712 (App.1992); Trollope v. Koerner, 21 Ariz.App. 43, 47, 515 P.2d 340, 344 (1973).
Section 12-332 enumerates various expenses included as costs. Subsection B specifically addresses jury fees and provides that they "shall" be taxed as costs although paid to the clerk of the superior court (instead of the successful party). The only discretion given the court is in subsection C allowing it "for good cause [to] relieve a person from payment of a jury fee when the court believes such relief proper."
The legislature clearly intended the unsuccessful party at trial to bear financial responsibility for jury fees. Therefore, to the extent that Rule 2.6(c) allows the superior court to assess jury fees against the successful party to the litigation, it is in conflict with these legislative stipulations.
Substantive rights created by statutes cannot be enlarged or diminished by court rules. Daou v. Harris, 139 Ariz. 353, 357, 678 P.2d 934, 938 (1984); State v. Birmingham, 95 Ariz. 310, 316, 390 P.2d 103, 107, reh'g 96 Ariz. 109, 392 P.2d 775 (1964). The substantive law is that part of the law which creates and defines rights, whereas the procedural law prescribes the method by which a substantive law is enforced or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dean v. State
...Other courts follow similar definitions in evaluating the application of court rules. See, for example, Roddy v. County of Maricopa, 184 Ariz. 625, 911 P.2d 631, 633 (1996). [¶ 56] While we have not previously specifically addressed the question of whether W.R.Cr.P. 48(b) is substantive or ......
-
Graville v. Dodge
...of right—the superior court has no discretion to deny costs to the successful party. A.R.S. § 12-341; Roddy v. County of Maricopa, 184 Ariz. 625, 627, 911 P.2d 631, 633 (App.1996). Rule 58(a), Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, provides that "entry of the judgment shall not be delayed for ta......
-
In re $15,379 In U.S. Currency
...action." We agree. An award of costs was mandatory and not subject to the trial court's discretion. See Roddy v. County of Maricopa , 184 Ariz. 625, 627, 911 P.2d 631, 633 (App. 1996). Although the state filed no objection to the statement of costs below, it now asserts that the expenses Ma......
-
In re In re
...action." We agree. An award of costs was mandatory and not subject to the trial court's discretion. See Roddy v. County of Maricopa, 184 Ariz. 625, 627, 911 P.2d 631, 633 (App. 1996). Although the state filed no objection to the statement of costs below, it now asserts that the expenses Mac......