Hubbard v. Superior Court of Maricopa Cnty., 535 P.2d 1302 (Ariz. 1975). · Go Syfert
Search
Hubbard v. Superior Court of Maricopa Cnty., 535 P.2d 1302 (Ariz. 1975). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
59 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 11 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Wyatt v. Wehmueller (ariz, 1991-02-28)
Treatment trajectory · 1976 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1976 2001 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wyatt v. Wehmueller (2×)
Ariz. · 1991 · confidence medium
Hubbard *286 v. Superior Court, 111 Ariz. 585, 586 , 535 P.2d 1302, 1303 (1975).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Gerald HUBBARD and Rita Hubbard, His Wife, Petitioners,
v.
SUPERIOR COURT OF MARICOPA COUNTY and Marilyn A. Riddel, Judge Thereof, AMERICAN ALLIANCE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Arizona Corporation, Arthur Herzberg, Gerald Barnes, Security National Life Insurance Company, a Utah Corporation, and Ben Brooks & Associates, Inc., Real Parties in Interest, Respondents
11773.
Arizona Supreme Court.
Jun 2, 1975.
535 P.2d 1302
Burch, Cracchiolo, Levie Guyer & Weyl, by Daniel Cracchiolo, Phoenix, for petitioners., Norling, Rolle, King & Oeser, by George S. Livermore, Cox & Cox, by Alfred S. Cox, Phoenix, for respondents American Alliance Life Ins. Co. and Security Nat. Life Ins. Co., Berry & Herrick, by Richard Berry, Tempe, for respondent Barnes & Herzberg., Murphy, Posner & Franks, by John K. Skomp, Phoenix, for respondent Ben Brooks & Associates, Inc.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 12 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Petitioners commenced a civil action in the Superior Court of Maricopa County alleging they were fraudulently induced to convey real property. In Count One of their complaint they sought rescission of a deed based on fraud. In Count Two they sought punitive damages against certain of the defendants. The Superior Court ordered the claim for punitive damages stricken. This special action seeks to restore petitioners’ claim for punitive damages. The issue is whether petitioners can have both a rescission and punitive damages.

Punitive damages may be recovered in Arizona in an equitable action where actual damages are proved. Starkovich v. Noye, 111 Ariz. 347, 529 P.2d 698 (1974). However, a party who has been defrauded is put to an election of remedies. He may either affirm the contract and sue for damages or rescind the contract and return the parties to the status quo ante. He cannot do both. Jennings v. Lee, 105 Ariz. 167, 461 P.2d 161 (1969). It is settled in Arizona that actual damages must be established as a predicate for recovery of punitive damages. Craviolini v. Scholer and Fuller, etc., 101 Ariz. 33, 415 P.2d 456 (1956); Jacob v. Miner, 67 Ariz. 109, 191 P.2d 734 (1948). We are not convinced that we should depart from the holdings of our former decisions.

Petitioners’ prayer for relief is denied.