§ 5.2.6 Other Possible Uses.

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

§ 5.2.6 Other Possible Uses. A.R.S. § 12-1835 expressly provides that the “enumeration in §§ 12-1832, 12-1833, and 12-1834 does not limit or restrict the exercise of the general powers conferred in § 12-1831 . . .” where the declaratory judgment will terminate a controversy or remove uncertainty. Thus, the remedy has other uses that do not fall neatly in the previously delineated categories. To some degree, the only limitations on the use of the remedy appear to be the presence of an actual justiciable controversy, the other prerequisites to the remedy discussed in § 5.3 and its subsections, infra, and an attorney’s lack of creativity.

An example of a creative use of the remedy is found in Café Valley v. Navidi, 235 Ariz. 252, 330 P.3d 1009 (Ct. App. 2014) . A.R.S. § 10-1604 grants shareholders a right to inspect records of a corporation in which they own shares. Records described in subsection A of the statute must be disclosed, but the corporation is only required to grant access to the records described in subsection B if the shareholders fulfill certain conditions identified in subsection C. Though that statute gives the shareholders a right to challenge the corporation’s denial of access, it does not grant the corporation a right to obtain judicial approval of its denial. In that case, the corporation sought a declaration that shareholders who owned a competing company were not entitled to inspect and copy certain records described in A.R.S. § 10-1604(B) . Though the trial court dismissed the declaratory judgment action, the Court of Appeals reversed and ruled that the corporation could obtain a declaratory judgment on whether its refusal was justified.

Another example of a creative use of the remedy is found in Babcock v. Tam, 156 F.2d 116 (9th Cir. 1946), in which the creditor obtained a judgment against Mr. Tam and then brought an action against Mr. Tam and his wife to obtain a determination that the judgment was a community obligation of the Tams. The court, by deciding the case on the merits, ruled sub silento that a declaratory judgment could be used to obtain that determination. Id. at 121. Quaere whether the Arizona courts would reach the same result in light of Shattuck v. Shattuck, 67 Ariz. 122, 192 P.2d 229 (1948) , and Glassford v. Glassford, 76 Ariz. 220, 262 P.2d 382 (1953) , as the defendants in Babcock v. Tam could have argued that the declaratory judgment action was, in effect, an effort to modify the original judgment that should have been obtained by a proceeding in the first action.

In Torosian v. National Capital Bank, 411 F. Supp. 167 (D.D.C. 1976) , a debtor brought a class action for a determination that the method used to calculate interest by several banks in the Washington, D.C., area resulted in usurious transactions. The court held that the declaratory judgment statute was...