Arizona Bright v. McDougall

── Arizona Bright v. McDougall ── Case No.: 1 CA-CV 25-0497 Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: March 23, 2026 Category: General NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE ARIZONA BRIGHT FUTURES, LLC, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. DANIEL P. MCDOUGALL, Defendant/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV 25-0497 FILED 03-23-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County No. S8015CV202400464 The Honorable Kenneth Gregory, Judge, Pro Tempore AFFIRMED COUNSEL Daniel P. McDougall, Big Oat Flat, California Defendant/Appellant MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge James B. Morse Jr. delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Andrew M. Jacobs and Judge Brian Y. Furuya joined.  ARIZONA BRIGHT v. MCDOUGALL Decision of the Court M O R S E, Judge: ¶1 Daniel McDougall ("McDougall") appeals the court's denial of his motion to vacate default judgment and dismiss action. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 McDougall owns a parcel of land located in Mohave County ("Property"). The treasurer of Mohave County sold a certificate of purchase to Arizona Bright Futures, LLC ("Arizona Bright") for the Property to pay delinquent taxes. ¶3 On March 26, 2024, Arizona Bright filed a complaint seeking to foreclose the rights of defendants, including McDougall, because the Property had not been redeemed and three years had passed since the sale to Arizona Bright. ¶4 After being granted two motions to extend service, Arizona Bright filed a motion for publication service in July 2024 because its various attempts at service had been unsuccessful. The court granted this motion because "despite reasonably diligent efforts, all previous attempts to serve [McDougall] ha[d] failed." The court found that service by publication was the best means to notify McDougall and was supported by an affidavit outlining Arizona Bright's efforts. In September 2024, Arizona Bright filed a motion for default judgment against McDougall and requested an Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 55(b)(2) hearing. ¶5 On November 25, 2024, McDougall redeemed the Property and paid all outstanding costs. On December 9, 2024, the Mohave County Treasurer received notice of the redemption. On December 18, 2024, Arizona Bright filed a similar notice, and, because redemption had occurred, revised its request to seek solely attorney fees of $4,770 and costs of $1,051.84. After the default hearing, the court found that McDougall redeemed the Property before judgment and awarded Arizona Bright its costs and $2,500 in attorney fees under A.R.S. §§ 12-341 and 42-18206. ¶6 On June 6, 2025, McDougall filed a Rule 60(b) motion to vacate the default judgment and to dismiss the action. McDougall argued the action should have been dismissed and the judgment was legally void because he had redeemed the lien. He also argued that Arizona Bright improperly served him because he maintained a "consistent and publicly available mailing address" and Arizona Bright failed to exercise due diligence depriving him of due process. He claimed this address was 2  ARIZONA BRIGHT v. MCDOUGALL Decision of the Court available "on record with the California Department of Motor Vehicles and other public agencies" since June of 2023. He asked the court to vacate the default judgment, void any title or interest conveyed through the judgment, and dismiss the complaint. ¶7 The court denied th