Tucson Telco Federal Credit Union v. Bowser
| Citation | 6 Ariz.App. 10,429 P.2d 502 |
| Decision Date | 20 June 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,CA-CIV,2 |
| Parties | TUCSON TELCO FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, an Arizona corporation, Appellant, v. Daniel L. BOWSER and Mary Bowser, husband and wife, Appellees. 421. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Arizona |
Ray F. Harris, Tucson, for appellant.
William L. Berlat, and Michael M. Moore, Tuscon, for appellees.
The right to appeal exists only by force of statute and therefore this court must pass upon its jurisdiction to consider an appeal. Howard P. Foley Co. v. Harris, 4 Ariz.App. 294, 419 P.2d 735 (1966) and cases cited therein. Examination of the record of the proceedings in the court below leads us to conclude that this appeal is premature.
Briefly, this litigation took the following course. The Bowsers, plaintiffs below, filed suit for damages for the allegedly wrongful repossession of their car by Tucson Telco. (Tucson Telco held the note and chattel mortgage.) Tucson Telco defended on the grounds that the plaintiff-wife had defaulted in payments on the note executed by her and did not come within the protection of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act. It also counterclaimed, seeking a deficiency judgment.
The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act protected them from repossession without court action, and therefore the subject repossession constituted a conversion of their personal property entitling them to recovery as a matter of law. The defendant likewise moved for summary judgment on both the plaintiffs' claim and its counterclaim. After consideration of the matter, the lower court entered a 'summary judgment and order' which recited:
'* * * and the Court having found that the Defendant had no right to repossess the mortgaged property of the Plaintiff, MARY BOWSER, who was at the time of the repossession a dependent of a person in military service, without first filing an action in a Court of competent jurisdiction and getting approval of said Court to do same pursuant to 50 U.S.C.A. 532 and 50 U.S.C.A. 536, and having directed that judgment be entered in accordance therewith; Now, therefore, by reason of the law and findings aforesaid:
'IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
Motion for Summary Judgment be granted;
This appeal was taken from the aforesaid 'summary judgment and order.'
Rule 56(c), as amended, Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S., provides in pertinent part:
'A summary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Musa v. Adrian
...Inc. v. Price, 116 Ariz. 34, 567 P.2d 350 (App.1977); Cook v. Cook, 26 Ariz.App. 163, 547 P.2d 15 (1976); Tucson Telco Federal Credit Union v. Bowser, 6 Ariz.App. 10, 429 P.2d 502, as supplemented 6 Ariz.App. 190, 431 P.2d 85 (1967); Bolon v. Pennington, 3 Ariz.App. 433, 415 P.2d 148 In Coo......
-
Cook v. Cook
...did not decide the merits of the controversy and, therefore, did not determine the 'rights of the parties.' Tucson Telco Federal Credit Union v. Bowser, 6 Ariz.App. 10, 429 P.2d 502, opn. supp., rehearing denied, 6 Ariz.App. 190, 431 P.2d 85 (1967), also decided by Division 2, involved an a......
-
Wyatt v. Ruck Const., Inc.
...punitive damages. This action of the court was interlocutory and cannot form the basis of an appeal. Cf. Tucson Telco Federal Credit Union v. Bowser, 6 Ariz.App. 10, 429 P.2d 502 (1967). The appeal as to Ruck is dismissed and the judgment of the trial court is HATHAWAY and SCHROEDER, JJ., c......
-
Bates v. Superior Court of State of Ariz., In and For Maricopa County, CV-87-0013-PR
...plaintiff petitioned this court for review. The trial court's summary judgment order is nonappealable. Tucson Telco Federal Credit Union v. Bowser, 6 Ariz.App. 10, 429 P.2d 502 (1967). We accepted jurisdiction because the issue is purely legal and a correct implementation of Arizona's choic......