Background
Janine M. Smith filed Arizona tax returns for tax years 2010 through 2015 reporting minimal income and almost no tax liability. The Arizona Department of Revenue later assessed taxes for those years. After Smith protested, an administrative hearing officer ruled for ADOR in January 2022, and Smith did not appeal that ruling.
ADOR sued Smith in November 2024 to collect more than $20,000 in unpaid taxes, penalties, interest, and costs. Smith filed a motion objecting to the complaint and seeking dismissal. The tax court denied the motion and ordered her to file an answer or other responsive pleading within ten days. She did not do so, and the court entered a default judgment in September 2025. Smith filed a notice of appeal with an incomplete form indicating a motion to vacate judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held that it had jurisdiction despite Smith’s failure to properly move to set aside the default judgment. Although direct appeals from default judgments are generally disfavored, that rule is prudential rather than jurisdictional. The tax court had already considered Smith’s contention that her initial dismissal motion should have been treated as an answer.
The court nevertheless affirmed because Smith’s opening brief did not comply with Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 13. Her brief restated issues without developing supporting arguments, citing legal authority for each contention, or providing sufficiently specific record citations. Those deficiencies waived all issues she sought to raise. The court also denied her request for attorney fees.
Key Takeaways
- The usual requirement to seek relief from a default judgment before appealing is prudential, not jurisdictional.
- A self-represented appellant must comply with briefing requirements, including developed argument and specific legal and record citations.
- Failure to comply with ARCAP 13 can waive every issue on appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that an appellate court may reach an appeal from a default judgment when the trial court has already had a meaningful opportunity to address the relevant issue. But it also illustrates the strict practical consequence of inadequate appellate briefing: even a potentially reviewable appeal will fail when the appellant does not properly develop the arguments.