Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, holds that the superior court has jurisdiction to enjoin a separate forcible entry and detainer judgment issued by a different court.

Two families worked together to run a business together.  The first family leased the property on which the business was run to the second family.  The second family claimed that they had an oral option to purchase the property, which is why they were paying excess rent on their property.  The first family claimed that those excess rent payments were just rent payments.  The first family filed a lawsuit seeking a forcible entry and detainer judgment against the second family, and obtained one.  The second family filed a separate lawsuit, seeking a preliminary injunction, and the court in that case granted one.  The first family appealed that injunction, arguing that the superior court lacked authority under the relevant statutes to issue an injunction preventing them from evicting the second family.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, holding that the superior court had authority to issue the injunction under the 1903 Injunction Limits Act, which allows an injunction if “the restraint is necessary to avoid multiplicity of . . . proceedings.”  The court rejected the first family’s argument that the 1913 Anti-Injunction Act had impliedly repealed the relevant portion of the Injunction Limits Act, because there was no conflict between the two statutes. 

Judge Paton authored the opinion; Judges Perkins and Steven joined. 

Posted by: John Bullock