KRUCKER, Chief Judge.
This appeal is from the granting of a summary judgment by the trial court in favor of the appellees (defendants below) on appellees' motion. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as they appeared below; that is, plaintiff and defendants.
The factual background of the situation at bar is that the plaintiff was in the mobile home sales business in 1964 and 1965 in Tucson, Arizona. The defendants financed certain aspects of this operation, including floor plan financing of the plaintiff's merchandise before he sold it and retail financing by buying the retail installment contracts the plaintiff obtained upon sales of mobile homes. The plaintiff signed personal guarantees of the retail installment contracts to the defendants.
The earlier action was filed by the defendant Scottsdale in Maricopa County against the plaintiff for, among other things, the plaintiff's failure to pay a balance due ($4,911) on two inventory trust receipts, given to defendant Scottsdale by the plaintiff as a part of the floor plan financing referred to above. This earlier action was filed October 11, 1966,
The instant complaint alleges, among other things,
The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, supported by the affidavit of the president of Schenectady. Defendants attached as exhibits to this affidavit, and incorporated by reference, the complaint, answer and judgment in the earlier case. An opposition, supported by the affidavit of plaintiff, was filed by the plaintiff.
The trial court granted summary judgment on the basis that all the matters in the complaint in the instant case were compulsory counterclaims under Rule 13(a), supra, in the earlier Maricopa County proceeding (as urged in defendants' motion) and, therefore, should have been asserted by plaintiff in that action, stating that the doctrine of res judicata was applicable and citing Biaett v. Phoenix Title & Trust Co., 70 Ariz. 164, 217 P.2d 923 (1950), and Technical Air Products, Inc. v. Sheridan-Gray, Inc., 103 Ariz. 450, 445 P.2d 426 (1968). The trial court expressly found that:
The only question here is whether or not the record before us shows the complaint in the instant action consists of matters which were compusory counterclaims, which should have been raised in the earlier case. If so, we must affirm the trial court's granting of summary judgment against the plaintiff.
Rule 13(a), supra, reads as follows:
The policy behind this rule is the avoidance of "multiplicity of actions and to achieve resolution in a single lawsuit of all disputes arising out of common matters." Southern Construction Co. Inc. v. Pickard, 371 U.S. 57, 83 S.Ct. 108, 9 L.Ed.2d 31 (1962); Biaett v. Phoenix Title & Trust Co., supra.
The plaintiff urges that the trial court erred for a number of reasons in ruling that the complaint in the case at bar was the subject of a compulsory counterclaim under Rule 13(a), supra, but, in view of the disposition we make of this appeal, we need not consider these contentions. Suffice it to say that the record here fairly supports all of the findings of the trial court, save one. This is to say that the plaintiff's claims here appear to have arisen out of the same transaction as the matters in the earlier case and that there seems to be a logical relationship between the matters in the earlier case and the instant case. Technical Air Products, Inc. v. Sheridan-Gray, Inc., supra. Further, there is no problem or dispute here as to either the presence or jurisdiction of parties and none as to the pendency of another action.
The deficiency in the record in the case before us is the absence of any indication as to the maturity of the plaintiff's claims at the time of the earlier proceeding. The general rule is that to be the subject of the compulsory counterclaim rules a claim must be mature. Local 499, IBEW v. Iowa Power & Light Co., 224 F.Supp. 731 (S.D.Iowa 1964); 1A Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure § 394 (Wright Ed. 1960); 3 Moore's Federal Practice para. 13.14 (2d ed. 1968). The most similar case we have found to the one before us is New Britain Machine Co. v. Yeo, 358 F.2d 397 (6th Cir.1966). In that case the court held that even a partially matured claim was subject to foreclosure under the compusory counterclaim rule since any part of the claim which was matured at the time of the earlier case could have been filed as a counterclaim, and then supplemental pleadings under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 13(e) could be filed as the claims fully matured. The problem before us is the lack of anything from which it can be determined that any or all of the claims presented in the case at bar had matured at the time the plaintiff here served his pleading in the earlier case. In fact, the record here does not even reveal the date on which the plaintiff effected such service. Upon determination of that date, the trial court must undertake to determine the maturity of the plaintiff's claims in the instant case at such time. Of course, if part or all of any of these separate claims had matured, then each respective claim (which had in part or in whole matured) would be foreclosed under the authority of the New Britain Machine case.
Reversed and remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
HATHAWAY and HOWARD, JJ., concur.