Case Summary

Howell v. 918 Construction — Affirmed default judgment despite misspelled company name in caption

By /
Case
Stephanie Howell and Todd Dieckenhoner v. 918 Construction, LLC
Court
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Judge
Kent E. Cattani (Jan Brewer, 2013)
Date Decided
June 26, 2026
Docket No.
1 CA-CV 25-0722
Topics
Default Judgment, Breach of Contract, Service of Process, Rule 60 Relief
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

The Howells contracted with 918 Construction, LLC to complete a home remodel in Arizona for $265,143, with a deadline of October 2023. After delays and extension to February 2024, the Howells moved to New Jersey when one spouse accepted a job there. By July 2024, the Howells had paid $314,000 with work still incomplete. When 918 Construction demanded an additional $50,000 to finish by September 2024, the Howells refused. The contractor stopped work and purported to cancel the contract. The Howells sold their home in December 2024 for $1,050,000 with the remodel still unfinished.

In October 2025, the Howells sued for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and negligence. 918 Construction, represented by its owner Mavrik Groff, did not respond to the complaint. Groff later claimed he thought no response was required because the complaint’s caption misspelled the company name as “918 Constructions, LLC” (with an “s”) rather than “918 Construction, LLC.” The correct spelling appeared in the body of the complaint.

After default was entered, the trial court held a damages hearing in March 2025 where Stephanie Howell testified about losses. Groff appeared but could not represent the company as a non-attorney. The court awarded the Howells $924,481 in damages for loss of home value and living expenses. 918 Construction moved to set aside the judgment under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), arguing the misspelling rendered the judgment void.

The Court’s Holding

The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of 918 Construction’s motion to set aside the default judgment. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that a misspelling in the caption constituted excusable neglect under Rule 60(b)(1). The critical fact was that 918 Construction had actual notice of the suit: the documents were sent to the correct address, received by Groff as the company’s owner and statutory agent, the correct spelling appeared in the complaint’s body, and Groff himself appeared at the damages hearing and admitted being served.

The court found that even if Groff relied on legal advice that no response was needed due to the spelling error, such advice would not be “legally excusable.” No reasonably prudent attorney would advise ignoring filed court documents that had been properly served on the company’s statutory agent. The court also rejected any argument for relief on excessive damages grounds, finding the $924,481 award supported by testimony that comparable homes sold for approximately $850,000 more than the Howells’ home during the same period, and noting that 918 Construction failed to appear or dispute damages at the hearing despite notice that such a hearing would occur.

Key Takeaways

  • A technical misspelling in a complaint’s caption does not excuse a defendant’s failure to respond if the defendant receives actual notice and the correct name appears in the complaint’s body.
  • An attorney’s advice not to respond to a lawsuit based on a pleading technicality is not “legally excusable” and does not justify relief from a default judgment.
  • A defendant’s owner appearing at a damages hearing while claiming ignorance of service does not support relief under Rule 60(b).
  • Damages supported by comparable sales evidence will not be deemed excessive absent compelling evidence to the contrary, particularly when the defaulting party fails to present opposing evidence at the damages hearing.

Why It Matters

This decision is significant for contractors and construction companies facing default judgments. It establishes that technical pleading errors—even errors in the defendant’s name—will not overturn a judgment if the defendant had actual notice and the opportunity to respond. The ruling reinforces that Arizona courts focus on substance over form when service is effective and notice is actual.

The decision also clarifies that reliance on an attorney’s advice regarding procedural defenses must be based on legally sound reasoning. A defendant cannot avoid the consequences of its own inaction by claiming reliance on questionable legal advice, particularly when the defendant’s principal was present at key proceedings. For parties in contract disputes, the case demonstrates the importance of responding promptly to litigation, even when minor technical defects appear in pleadings.

✉️ 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.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top