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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

In re the Matter of:

JESSICA SIQUEIROS, Petitioner/Appellee,

v.

GABRIEL VALENZUELA, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CV 22-0370 FC

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. FC2021-050947

The Honorable Scott A. Blaney, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Law Office of Katherine Kraus, PLLC, Peoria

By Kimberley A. Staley

Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee

Rose & Associates, PLLC, Chandler

By Timothy J. Rose

Counsel for Respondent/Appellant

FILED 3-14-2023
SIQUEIROS v. VALENZUELA

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie delivered the Court’s decision, in which 

Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge Michael S. Catlett joined.

M c M U R D I E, Judge:

¶1 Gabriel Valenzuela (“Husband”) purports to appeal from the 

superior court’s judgment accepting a consent decree lodged by Jessica 

Siqueiros (“Wife”) and from the court’s order awarding Wife’s attorney’s 

fees. We have jurisdiction to consider only Husband’s challenge to the fee

award, and we find no error and affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Wife petitioned for dissolution and lodged a consent decree

signed by both parties. Husband objected to the lodged decree. On 

November 5, 2021, the superior court ruled in Wife’s favor, adopted the 

decree, and awarded Wife a portion of her reasonable attorney’s fees. On 

November 19, Wife submitted her attorney’s fees application.

¶3 Husband moved for reconsideration. On December 7, the 

court denied the motion in a minute entry signed “as a formal, final, and 

appealable [o]rder” under Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure (“Rule”)

78(c). Husband appealed this order on January 6, 2022. He eventually 

abandoned the appeal by failing to pay the filing fee. See A.R.S. § 12-322(A).

¶4 On January 31, the superior court awarded Wife over $5,000 

in reasonable attorney’s fees. The January 31 order lacked Rule 78 finality 

language. At Wife’s request, the court amended the attorney’s fees order on 

May 12, 2022, to include finality language.

¶5 Husband then appealed “from the judgments/orders entered 

on May 12, 2022.”
SIQUEIROS v. VALENZUELA

Decision of the Court

3

DISCUSSION

A. We Have Jurisdiction to Consider Only Husband’s Challenge to 

the Attorney’s Fees Award.

¶6 “We have an independent obligation to determine whether 

we have appellate jurisdiction and must dismiss those matters over which 

we lack jurisdiction.” Gish v. Greyson, 253 Ariz. 437, 442, ¶ 19 (App. 2022)

(citing Dabrowski v. Bartlett, 246 Ariz. 504, 511, ¶ 13 (App. 2019)). “This 

court’s appellate jurisdiction is defined, and limited, by the Legislature.”

Brumett v. MGA Home Healthcare, L.L.C., 240 Ariz. 420, 426, ¶ 4 (App. 2016). 

“Whether this court has appellate jurisdiction turns on compliance with 

(1) the applicable statute on which appellate jurisdiction is based and 

(2) any applicable procedural rules.” Yee v. Yee, 251 Ariz. 71, 74–75, ¶ 8 

(App. 2021). As relevant here, a party may appeal “[f]rom a final judgment 

entered in an action . . . commenced in a superior court” or “[f]rom any 

special order made after final judgment.” A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(1), (2).

¶7 Generally, if a party files a notice of appeal before a final 

judgment—such as while a determination of the amount of attorney’s fees 

remains pending—the notice is “ineffective.” Ghadimi v. Soraya, 230 Ariz. 

621, 623–24, ¶¶ 12–14 (App. 2012); see also Craig v. Craig, 227 Ariz. 105, 107,

¶ 13 (2011). But “[i]f a party asserts a claim for attorney fees . . . and a 

judgment is entered under [Rule 78] that omits a ruling on the claim, the 

claim is deemed denied” unless a party moves to amend the judgment. 

Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 78(e)(3).

¶8 Wife applied for attorney’s fees on November 19, 2021. With 

that application pending, the court denied Husband’s motion for 

reconsideration on December 7 in a final order under Rule 78(c). So under 

Rule 78(e)(3), the claim for attorney’s fees was “deemed denied.” As a 

result, Husband’s appeal “from the judgments/orders entered on 

December 7, 2021” was effective. But Husband abandoned that appeal.

Thus, the issues resolved in the December 7 judgment are final. See Fields v.

Oates, 230 Ariz. 411, 416–17, ¶ 22 (App. 2012) (If successive judgments are 

entered, unless the later judgment alters substantive rights or obligations, 

the time to appeal runs from the earlier “final” judgment.).
SIQUEIROS v. VALENZUELA

Decision of the Court

4

¶9 Still, the court awarded Wife over $5,000 in attorney’s fees on 

January 31.1 On May 12, the court amended the attorney’s fees order nunc 

pro tunc to include Rule 78 finality language. Husband appealed “from the 

judgments/orders entered on May 12, 2022.”

¶10 Husband erroneously designated the nunc pro tunc order as 

the judgment from which he now appeals. See ARCAP 8(c)(3) (A notice of 

appeal must “[d]esignate the judgment . . . from which the party is 

appealing.”). That said, we generally construe notices of appeal liberally if

the result would not be misleading or prejudicial to the parties. Gutierrez v. 

Gutierrez, 193 Ariz. 343, 350, ¶ 30 (App. 1998). For example, a mistaken date 

may be viewed as a “mere technical error” and should not prevent a court

from reaching the merits of the appeal. Hanen v. Willis, 102 Ariz. 6, 9 (1967).

¶11 Husband appealed the order that amended the attorney’s fees 

award. We are thus satisfied that Husband appealed the January 31 

attorney’s fees award.

¶12 In his opening brief, Husband raises four issues arising from

the court’s November 5 and December 7 orders and only one issue 

challenging the attorney’s fees award. Husband abandoned his appeal from 

the initial rulings, so we lack jurisdiction to consider those issues. 

Dabrowski, 246 Ariz. at 511, ¶ 13. But we have jurisdiction to review his 

challenge to the attorney’s fees award under A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(2) (A party 

may appeal “[f]rom any special order made after final judgment.”).

B. The Superior Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion by Awarding 

Wife Attorney’s Fees.

¶13 The superior court awarded Wife her attorney’s fees under 

Rule 69(c), which permits a court to award fees under A.R.S. § 25-324. We 

review a fee award under A.R.S. § 25-324 for an abuse of discretion. Ferrill 

v. Ferrill, 253 Ariz. 393, 396, ¶ 8 (App. 2022).

¶14 Husband argues the court erred by awarding Wife fees 

because the “court’s entire finding was based on the false premise that the 

parties actually discussed the issues Husband objected to.” But the court 

found Husband’s testimony not credible and found that the parties had 

1 Husband could have challenged this determination as improper 

under Rule 78(e)(3), but he did not, and thus the issue is now waived. 

Lunney v. State, 244 Ariz. 170, 181, ¶ 40 (App. 2017) (“Issues not raised 

before the superior court are waived on appeal.”).
SIQUEIROS v. VALENZUELA

Decision of the Court

5

discussed the terms of their agreement. In any event, because Husband 

abandoned his appeal of the December 7 judgment, the only matter

correctly before us is the superior court’s January 31 order setting the 

amount of attorney’s fees. Husband has not challenged the award amount

in the superior court or on appeal. The superior court did not abuse its 

discretion by awarding Wife the fees she incurred defending the 

agreement’s validity.

ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS

¶15 Both parties request their fees and costs on appeal under Rule 

69(c) and A.R.S. § 25-324. Husband unreasonably raised arguments 

abandoned and precluded. Thus, per our discretion, we award Wife her 

reasonable attorney’s fees and costs upon compliance with Arizona Rule of 

Civil Appellate Procedure 21.

CONCLUSION

¶16 We affirm.