## Facts

- Patrick Maderia, an Arizona resident and corporate officer of TriStar International, signed a credit application stating his signature constituted a personal guaranty if the account became delinquent.
- Patrick’s wife, Jane Maderia, did not sign the application or guaranty.
- After TriStar defaulted, Rackmaster sued in Minnesota and obtained a default judgment solely against Patrick for $23,110.98; Jane was neither named nor served.
- Rackmaster domesticated the Minnesota judgment in Arizona and sought a writ of garnishment against a joint Arizona bank account held by Patrick and Jane.
- The parties agreed the garnished account was community property, but disputed whether it could be reached to satisfy the judgment based on Patrick’s guaranty.
- The superior court refused to quash the writ, permitting garnishment of the community account, and relied in part on an unpublished memorandum decision.

## Issues

1. Whether a creditor may garnish Arizona community property to satisfy a judgment on a guaranty signed only by one spouse, given A.R.S. § 25-214(C)(2)’s requirement that both spouses join in a guaranty to bind the community.
2. Whether full faith and credit to a foreign judgment requires Arizona to allow collection from community property where the judgment was entered only against one spouse.
3. Whether A.R.S. § 25-214(C)(2) is substantive (limiting community liability) or merely procedural (a joinder rule).
4. Whether the superior court erred by relying on an unpublished memorandum decision.

## Decision

- The court of appeals reversed the superior court’s order declining to quash the writ of garnishment and remanded.
- A.R.S. § 25-214(C)(2) was held to be substantive, not procedural.
- Because Jane did not sign the guaranty, the community bank account could not be garnished to satisfy the judgment on that guaranty.
- Full faith and credit required recognition of the foreign judgment against Patrick, but did not require enforcement against Arizona property that is not liable under Arizona substantive community-property law.
- The superior court erred in relying on an unpublished memorandum decision that could not properly be cited.

## Legal Principles

- Under A.R.S. § 25-214(C)(2), both spouses must join in a guaranty, indemnity, or suretyship transaction to bind the marital community.
- A statute is substantive if it creates or defines rights and liabilities; it is procedural if it prescribes the method for enforcing rights.
- A.R.S. § 25-214(C)(2) is substantive because it limits the community’s liability for guaranty obligations when only one spouse signs.
- Recognition of a sister-state judgment does not compel enforcement against property that state law makes nonliable; enforcement mechanisms and the reach of execution against in-state property are governed by the forum’s substantive property rules.
- Unpublished memorandum decisions are nonprecedential and generally may not be cited as authority under applicable appellate rules.

## Conclusion

The court of appeals held that a judgment on a guaranty signed only by one spouse cannot be collected from Arizona community property because A.R.S. § 25-214(C)(2) substantively protects the nonsigning spouse’s community interest, and full faith and credit does not override that limitation on enforcement.


Rackmaster Sys., Inc. v. Maderia, 193 P.3d 314 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008)