 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re 2001 GMC Denali Vin5/19/2005
arley, 106 Ariz. 119, 122, 471 P.2d 731, 734 (1970) ("If reasonably practical, a statute should be explained in conjunction with other statutes to the end that they may be harmonious and consistent."); Baker v. Gardner, 160 Ariz. 98, 101, 770 P.2d 766, 769 (1988) ("Courts construe seemingly conflicting statutes in harmony when possible."). We also avoid constructions that render one portion of a statute a nullity. E.g., In re Maricopa County Superior Court No. MH 2001-001139, 203 Ariz. 351, 354, 17, 54 P.3d 380, 383 (App. 2002) ("A cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to avoid, if possible, an interpretation which renders superfluous any portion of a statute."). And, as mentioned earlier, we give preference to specific statutory provisions over general ones. Davis, 119 Ariz. at 534, 582 P.2d at 180.
If we construed § 13-4314(A) or (B) as appellant requests (that all timely claims must be heard even in formal adjudications when a timely answer was required but not filed), we would violate the pertinent principles of statutory construction. The ten-day letter provision of § 13-4311(G) would not be recognized; that provision would become a nullity; and the specific provision would be struck in the face of a more general provision. Section 13-4311 (G) invokes the default mechanism of §§ 13-4314 and -4315 specifically for those who have "timely filed a claim that has not been stricken by the court." A.R.S. § 13-4311(G) (emphasis added). Yet we can still give meaning to the provisions of § 13-4314(A) and (B) (allowing for the adjudication of timely claims) by construing them to apply to claims for which another statute, such as § 13-4311(G), does not require a subsequent answer. Thus, we render a construction that is cohesive and does not ignore any express terms of the statutory scheme.
Our holding is also consistent with our previous statement in Five Thousand, 169 Ariz. at 159, 817 P.2d at 963 (requiring both claim and answer). Accordingly, appellant had an obligation to file an answer. His failure to do so allowed the state to proceed with the forfeiture. Appellant is not entitled to relief on these grounds.
D.
In summary, the state did not need to provide a declaration of forfeiture; the state provided an appropriate tenday letter; and once the state filed a complaint, appellant had an obligation under § 13-4311(G) to file an answer. We conclude that appellant's failure to file an answer was not a product of "excusable neglect." Ariz. R. Civ. P. 60(c). Accordingly, appellant is not entitled to relief.
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, and those set forth in the memorandum decision filed simultaneously, the order of the trial court is affirmed.
DANIEL A. BARKER, Judge
CONCURRING:
ANN A. SCOTT TIMMER, Presiding Judge
LAWRENCE F. WINTHROP, Judge
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Arizona Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|