Terborg v. Town of Payson, No. 2 CA -CV 2025-0080 (App. Div. II, November 5, 2025) (J. Eckerstrom) https://www.appeals2.az.gov/decisions/CV20250080OpinionCorrreleased.pdf

WHERE NOTICE OF CLAIM DEMANDED “ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($250,000)” A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A) IS SATISFIED AS WRITTEN WORD CONTROLS OVER NUMERICAL

Plaintiff, a bystander to Payson police in pursuit of a criminal, was bit by a police dog. In his Notice of Claim against the town he stated “A demand on behalf of Joseph Terborg is hereby made for the sum-certain amount of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($250,000.00) upon the City of Payson, the Payson Police Department, and/or Gila County.” The Gila County Superior Court entered summary judgment for the town finding the plaintiff had failed to provide a specific amount in the Notice of Claim that the Town could pay to settle the case as required by A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A). The Arizona Court of Appeals disagreed reversing and remanding.

The court of appeals found that in the context of the entire notice, plaintiff used parenthesis repeatedly and always in the sense that “words prevail over numbers.”

Under settled understandings of legal style, Terborg signaled

that the contents of his parentheticals were in service to, and therefore

subordinate to, the text.  The foremost contemporary manual on legal style

observes that parentheses suggest to the reader:  “Take me or leave me.” 

Plaintiff complied with the Notice of Claim statute. “The sole reasonable interpretation of the numerical inconsistency is that Terborg meant ‘one hundred thousand dollars.'”