NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

MAJID NAYERI, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellees,1

v.

MOHAVE COUNTY, et al., Defendants/Appellants. 

No. 1 CA-TX 21-0001 

 1 CA-TX 21-0002 

 (Consolidated)

Appeal from the Arizona Tax Court 

No. TX2016-000893 

The Honorable Danielle J. Viola, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Brentwood Law Group, PLLC, Tempe

By Stephen Brower

Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee Majid Nayeri

Al Arpad, Esq., Phoenix

By Alexander R. Arpad

Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee Bita Abidian

1 On the court’s own motion, it is ordered amending the caption in this 

appeal as reflected in this decision. The above referenced caption shall be 

used on all further documents filed in this appeal.

FILED 2-3-2022
2 

Mohave County Attorney’s Office, Kingman

By Jeffrey B. Haws, Matthew J. Smith

Counsel for Defendants/Appellants

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Peter B. Swann and Judge D. Steven Williams joined.

B A I L E Y, Judge:

¶1 Mohave County and Mohave County Treasurer Cindy Landa

Cox (collectively, “the County”) appeal the tax court’s award of attorneys’ 

fees to Majid Nayeri and Bita Abidian (collectively, “Taxpayers”).2 For the 

following reasons, we affirm. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 This case began when Mohave Valley River Enterprises 

(“MVRE”) and Taxpayers sued the County to enjoin the sale of delinquent

tax liens, arguing the sale was untimely. The same attorney represented 

both plaintiffs. After the tax court granted summary judgment for the 

County, MVRE and Taxpayers appealed.

¶3 While the appeal was pending, MVRE settled its claims with 

the County and agreed to pay its own attorneys’ fees and costs. Taxpayers 

pursued the appeal. We vacated and remanded. See Nayeri v. Mohave Cnty., 

247 Ariz. 490, 492, ¶ 1 (App. 2019). 

¶4 On remand, the parties agreed the tax court need only decide 

whether to grant Taxpayers a tax abatement and whether to award 

Taxpayers attorneys’ fees. The court denied the request for abatement and 

awarded Taxpayers $110,390.00 in attorneys’ fees under Arizona Revised 

Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 12-348(B)(3). The County timely appealed.

2 Although Taxpayers filed a notice of cross-appeal, Taxpayers 

abandoned the cross-appeal and did not file a cross-appeal brief. The 

parties agreed the only issue in this appeal is attorneys’ fees.
NAYERI, et al. v. MOHAVE COUNTY, et al.

Decision of the Court

3 

¶5 We have jurisdiction over the County’s appeal under Article 

6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1) and 

12-2101(A)(1). 

DISCUSSION

¶6 The County argues the tax court abused its discretion in 

awarding attorneys’ fees to Taxpayers for work done on behalf of MVRE 

and for work on the unsuccessful tax abatement claim. 

¶7 A court may award attorneys’ fees under A.R.S. § 12-348(B)(3) 

to the prevailing party in an action against a county challenging “[t]he 

regularity of sales of property for delinquent taxes.” Once a party 

requesting fees has met the minimum requirements, the opposing party has 

the burden to show the requested fees are unreasonable. See State ex rel. 

Corbin v. Tocco, 173 Ariz. 587, 594-96 (App. 1992) (affirming an award of 

attorneys’ fees where the opposing party conducted no discovery and 

presented no evidence challenging the relevance of any entry).

¶8 We review an award of attorneys’ fees for an abuse of 

discretion. Democratic Party of Pima Cnty. v. Ford, 228 Ariz. 545, 547, ¶ 6 

(App. 2012). We will not disturb the judgment if there is any reasonable 

basis for it. Associated Indem. Corp. v. Warner, 143 Ariz. 567, 570-71 (1985) 

(citation omitted). “[T]he question is not whether the judges of this court 

would have made an original like ruling, but whether a judicial mind, in 

view of the law and circumstances, could have made the ruling without 

exceeding the bounds of reason.” Id. at 571 (quoting Davis v. Davis, 78 Ariz. 

174, 179 (1954) (Windes, J., specially concurring)).

¶9 Taxpayers filed a detailed request for attorneys’ fees and costs 

that totaled $117,445.00 and a declaration from counsel stating the fees 

corresponded to work for “Plaintiffs Majid Nayeri and Bita Abidian.” After 

the County specifically objected to four entries including a report on 

bankruptcy repercussions, drafts of a mediation memo, and a report to 

Nayeri, Taxpayers removed the four entries—as well as one other—and 

reduced its fee request to $114,640.00. 

¶10 At oral argument, the County argued that Taxpayers’ fee 

request did not distinguish between work done for MVRE and Taxpayers, 

and that the amount requested was excessive. Taxpayers’ counsel argued 

that he had removed all entries relating solely to work performed for 

MVRE, and that the remaining work was necessary, regardless of MVRE’s

involvement. Taxpayers’ counsel also argued that Taxpayers and MVRE

signed a fee agreement to be jointly and severally liable for attorneys’ fees 
NAYERI, et al. v. MOHAVE COUNTY, et al.

Decision of the Court

4 

and costs, and that the collateral source rule precluded the County from 

arguing that some fees were paid by other sources. The tax court took the 

matter under advisement. After it held a post-argument status conference 

with the parties, the court awarded Taxpayers $110,390.00 in attorneys’ 

fees, noting that the amount excluded “vague” entries and entries 

associated with Taxpayers’ unsuccessful effort to obtain an abatement. 

¶11 On appeal, the County raises the same arguments: that the tax

court awarded attorneys’ fees for work done solely on behalf of MVRE and 

for work on the unsuccessful abatement request. The County does not 

support this contention with specific problematic entries or evidence that 

Taxpayers’ counsel was paid by two sources for the same work. Although

Taxpayers’ final fee application included a $150 entry for analyzing the 

MVRE settlement agreement, work that clearly did not benefit Taxpayers, 

the tax court reduced the fee request by more than $4,000. The County did 

not meet its burden to show the awarded fees were unreasonable. See Tocco, 

173 Ariz. at 594-96. 

¶12 The County also argues the tax court abused its discretion in 

awarding approximately $85,000 in attorneys’ fees for work performed 

between January 2017 and December 2018, a period when counsel 

represented both Taxpayers and MVRE, contending the fee request was 

unreasonable per se. We disagree. By awarding attorneys’ fees for work 

performed during that period, the tax court implicitly accepted Taxpayers’ 

argument that the work was necessary regardless of MVRE’s involvement 

in the case. We see no abuse of discretion in this conclusion. 

¶13 Taxpayers request attorneys’ fees on appeal under A.R.S. § 12-

348(A)(1) and (B)(3). Subsection (A)(1), which authorizes fees in a civil 

action brought by the county, is inapplicable because Taxpayers filed this 

action. In our discretion, we award Taxpayers attorneys’ fees and taxable 

costs under A.R.S. § 12-348(B)(3), in an amount to be determined upon 

compliance with Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 21.

CONCLUSION

¶14 For the reasons stated above, we affirm.