Background
On September 2, 2020, Ryan Goff and Anna Marie Cano were involved in a motor vehicle collision. Two years later, on August 25, 2022, Goff sued Cano and State Farm Automobile Insurance for damages. About a month after filing, Goff emailed State Farm offering to settle for $6,500. State Farm responded the same day with a Release form releasing Cano from all claims arising from the collision. Goff signed the Release on September 29, 2022, and acknowledged that he fully understood and voluntarily accepted the settlement terms.
One week later, on October 5, 2022, Goff sent an email rescinding his offer, claiming the Release was “Null and void” because State Farm had not completed performance by the close of business that day. Goff then filed a motion for default against both defendants, but struggled with proper service. After failed attempts at service, State Farm moved to dismiss for lack of proper service. The trial court dismissed State Farm for improper service. Cano subsequently moved to enforce the Release, and the trial court granted the motion, finding the Release valid and binding. The court then dismissed Goff’s entire complaint with prejudice on March 20, 2025.
The Court’s Holding
The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal on two independent grounds. First, the court lacked personal jurisdiction over State Farm because Goff never properly served the insurance company with process. Goff admitted State Farm “was never served” and offered no argument explaining how lack of service satisfied due process requirements. Because proper service is essential for jurisdiction, the dismissal of State Farm was proper.
Second, the Release constituted a valid, enforceable contract under Arizona law. The court found all required elements were present: Cano offered the Release with sufficiently specific terms, Goff accepted by signing and returning it, and consideration ($6,500) was provided. The court rejected Goff’s claim that he could unilaterally rescind the Release by merely stating it was “void.” Under Arizona law, rescission requires either mutual agreement by both parties or a court order based on legal grounds such as breach or material nonperformance.
The court further held that even assuming Cano breached the Release by failing to pay within one week, this did not constitute a material breach justifying rescission. The Release contained no language stating “time is of the essence,” and therefore a one-week delay in payment was not unreasonable. Goff’s own communications never specified that payment had to occur by a particular deadline. Additionally, Goff’s amended complaint never specifically alleged any breach by Cano herself—only by State Farm—thus waiving any rescission claims against Cano. The court also rejected Goff’s attempt to raise Americans with Disabilities Act claims for the first time in his reply brief, ruling such issues waived.
Key Takeaways
- Once a settlement release is validly executed with all required contractual elements (offer, acceptance, consideration, and specified terms), it is binding and enforceable under Arizona law.
- A party cannot unilaterally rescind a valid settlement agreement by simply declaring it void; rescission requires either mutual consent or a court-ordered rescission based on demonstrated breach, material nonperformance, or other legal grounds.
- Without explicit language making “time of the essence,” a short delay in payment (here, one week) does not constitute material breach justifying rescission of a settlement agreement.
- Pro se litigants must comply with procedural requirements for service of process; failure to properly serve a defendant results in loss of personal jurisdiction over that defendant.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces Arizona’s strong policy favoring the enforcement of settlement agreements and releases. For attorneys advising clients in settlement negotiations, the case illustrates that signed releases are effective once all contract elements are satisfied, and a settling party cannot escape the settlement through unilateral rescission without demonstrating actual breach or material nonperformance by the other party. The decision also emphasizes the importance of clear settlement terms: parties concerned about payment timing should explicitly state when payment must be made and include “time is of the essence” language if prompt payment is critical.
For pro se litigants, the decision serves as a cautionary reminder that appellate relief is limited when procedural rules—such as proper service of process—are not followed in the trial court. Courts cannot exercise jurisdiction over defendants who have not been properly served, and failing to raise issues in the trial court generally results in waiver on appeal, even when those issues might have merit.
✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.