Service On One Member Of The Board Of Supervisors Does Not Comply
With Either A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A) Or Rule 4.1(I)

In March 2006, the Court of Appeals held in Falcon v. Maricopa County that service of a notice of claim on one member of the Board of Supervisors was sufficient to comply with the statutory notice requirements of A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A) and Rule 4.1(i). The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office filed a timely appeal with the Arizona Supreme Court.

The Arizona Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction because it felt that the Court of Appeals’ interpretation of Rule 4.1(i) had important legal and practical consequences for political subdivisions in the State.

The Arizona Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals when it stated that the chief executive officer for the county is the board of supervisors and set out to determine if the Board could be served through one of its members.

The Supreme Court concluded that the Court of Appeals erred in its interpretation of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure regarding service of process. The Supreme Court held that serving one member of the board did not put the county on notice of the claim or give it an opportunity to resolve a claim pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A). The Court held that the Plaintiff had not properly served the notice of claim on the county when it served one member of the board even though it was that member’s policy to forward any claims received to the clerk of the board. The clerk is authorized to accept service for the county.

Based on the finding that the chief executive office for the county is the board of supervisors, service on one member of the board does not comply with either A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A) or Rule 4.1(i)

THE FOREGOING IS MERELY A PARTIAL SUMMARY OF THE CASE
AND IS NOT INTENDED TO BE RELIED UPON AS A LEGAL OPINION.