Background
Arizona Holbrook Hospitality Group LLC sued California attorney Vincent Van Ho and his law office for legal malpractice arising from their work on the sale of Arizona real property. AHHG alleged that Van Ho advised it to sign a release and reconveyance deed recorded in Navajo County, causing AHHG to lose its security interest in the buyer’s obligation.
After unsuccessful personal-service attempts, the superior court authorized alternative service by publication, email, and first-class mail. Van Ho did not respond to the complaint, default application, or default-judgment motion. The court entered a $600,000 default judgment in June 2024. After AHHG domesticated the judgment in California, Van Ho moved to set it aside, arguing that Arizona lacked personal jurisdiction and that equitable circumstances warranted relief.
The Court’s Holding
The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Van Ho’s Rule 60(b) motion. The court held that Arizona had specific personal jurisdiction because Van Ho purposefully provided legal services concerning an Arizona real-estate transaction for an Arizona LLC, including work involving the Arizona property, an Arizona title company, Arizona agencies, and a deed recorded in Arizona.
AHHG’s malpractice claim directly arose from those Arizona-focused services, and Van Ho did not make a compelling showing that jurisdiction was unreasonable. The default judgment therefore was not void under Rule 60(b)(4). The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying equitable relief under Rule 60(b)(6), noting that Van Ho conceded service complied with the court-approved procedure and did not substantiate his asserted defenses or other equitable grounds.
Key Takeaways
- Out-of-state lawyers may be subject to Arizona jurisdiction when their services purposefully target an Arizona real-estate transaction.
- A default admits well-pleaded allegations, which may establish jurisdictional facts in a later Rule 60 challenge.
- Rule 60(b)(6) requires extraordinary hardship or injustice; dissatisfaction with the consequences of a properly served default is insufficient.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that a lawyer’s physical location does not control personal jurisdiction. Legal work directed at Arizona property, an Arizona client entity, and Arizona transaction participants can support an Arizona malpractice suit.
The memorandum decision is not precedential under Arizona Supreme Court Rule 111(c), but it underscores the importance of responding promptly to alternative service and default proceedings.