NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE

LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

PERRY BOSER, individually and on behalf of THERESA DANNIELLE 

BOSER, deceased, and on behalf of all statutory beneficiaries, 

Plaintiffs/Appellee,

v.

JASON LEE WARE, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CV 15-0127

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CV 2011-007329

The Honorable Randall H. Warner, Judge

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

COUNSEL

Jason Lee Ware, Tucson

Defendant/Appellant

Goldberg & Osborne, Phoenix

By Allen D. Bucknell

Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellees
BOSER v. WARE

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Patricia A. Orozco delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Andrew W. Gould and Judge Peter B. Swann joined.

O R O Z C O, Judge:

¶1 Jason Lee Ware appeals the civil court’s authorization for 

release of a bond posted by Nicole Silvey on Ware’s behalf in a criminal 

case to satisfy a judgment against Ware in a related civil action filed by 

Perry Boser (Boser). For the following reasons, we dismiss this appeal for 

lack of jurisdiction.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Ware killed Theresa Boser in an auto accident. As a result, 

Ware was charged with manslaughter and endangerment. Silvey, Ware’s 

sister, posted a $150,000 cash bond for Ware’s release while his trial was 

pending. 

¶3 Thereafter, Boser, the surviving spouse of Theresa Boser, filed 

a wrongful death action against Ware. After Ware failed to answer the 

complaint and otherwise comply with discovery requirements, a default 

judgment was entered against Ware in the wrongful death case. Boser was 

subsequently awarded over three million dollars in damages in the 

wrongful death case. 

¶4 Boser requested release of the bond posted in Ware’s criminal 

case to satisfy part of the judgment in the wrongful death case. The superior 

court judge in the criminal action held Boser’s request in abeyance to be 

determined by the judge in the related wrongful death case (Judge Warner). 

Boser then filed a request for release of the bond in the wrongful death case, 

alleging that because Silvey “testified that she received this [bond] money 

from Mr. Ware’s settlement,” the bond was the property of Ware and 

should be assigned to Boser to satisfy the civil judgment. 

¶5 Judge Warner initially denied Boser’s request, stating that 

“[a]s just as it may seem to simply take money belonging to [Ware] and 

transfer it to [Boser] in partial satisfaction of the substantial judgment, the 

court is unaware of any law or rule that authorizes it to do this.” The court 
BOSER v. WARE

Decision of the Court

3

further opined that “the way to collect funds in the hands of one person that 

belong to another to satisfy a judgment is garnishment.” 

¶6 Eight months later, Boser filed a motion to reconsider. Boser 

explained that he attempted to garnish the bond by serving a writ of 

garnishment on the Clerk of the Court as suggested by Judge Warner, but 

that he had been unable to collect the funds. Judge Warner granted Boser’s 

motion to reconsider, explaining that he had “not found any procedure in 

Arizona law by which to determine what should happen to this cash bond.” 

Judge Warner ruled that “[i]n absence of anything in statute or rule, the 

court will issue this order to show cause so that each person claiming a right 

to the cash bond has notice and an opportunity to be heard.” The court’s 

order to show cause obligated Ware and Silvey to “show cause why the 

bond should not be released to [Boser].” 

¶7 At the show cause hearing, Ware and Silvey testified Ware 

gifted Silvey $150,000 and the money belonged to her; the court, however, 

did not find their testimony credible. The court concluded the $150,000 cash 

bond “was posted by Mr. Ware’s sister, Nicole Silvey, but the funds used 

belonged to Mr. Ware,” and ordered the Clerk to release the bond to Boser. 

Ware timely appealed. 

DISCUSSION

¶8 On appeal, Ware argues Judge Warner lacked jurisdiction to 

conduct proceedings related to the disposition of the bond, and abused his 

discretion in making findings regarding the ownership of the bond monies. 

Ware requests we declare the civil court order “null and void,” and return 

the bond money to Silvey. 

¶9 This court has an obligation to determine whether it has 

jurisdiction to hear a matter before it. Ariz.-Am. Water Co. v. Ariz. Corp. 

Comm’n, 209 Ariz. 189, 190, ¶ 5 (App. 2004). An appellant must be 

aggrieved for this court to have jurisdiction. ARCAP 1(d); see In re 

Roseman’s Estate, 68 Ariz. 198, 200 (1949). Absent an aggrieved appellant, 

dismissal is required. Chambers v. United Farm Workers Org. Comm., AFL–

CIO, 25 Ariz. App. 104, 107 (1975) (citing In re Estate of McCabe, 11 Ariz. App. 

555, 556 (1970)); accord Kondaur Capital Corp. v. Pinal Cty., 235 Ariz. 189, 192, 

¶ 6 (App. 2014); Farmers Ins. Grp. v. Worth Ins. Co., 8 Ariz. App. 69, 71 (1968).

¶10 Mere dissatisfaction with the result of a judgment is 

insufficient to constitute aggrievement for jurisdictional purposes. 

Chambers, 25 Ariz. App. at 107. An appellant is only aggrieved by a 

judgment when “it denies that party some personal or property right or 
BOSER v. WARE

Decision of the Court

4

imposes on that party some substantial burden or obligation.” Kerr v. 

Killian, 197 Ariz. 213, 216, ¶ 10 (App. 2000). The impact to the appellant 

must be direct, substantial, and immediate. Douglas v. Governing Bd. of

Window Rock Consol. Sch. Dist. No. 8, 221 Ariz. 104, 108, ¶ 7 (App. 2009)

(citation omitted).

¶11 Ware contends the $150,000 bond money was the property of 

Silvey, and the court erred in failing to characterize it as such. However, in 

doing so, Ware effectively conceded he was not the aggrieved party because 

he has not been denied a personal or property right. Without an injury 

resulting from the judgment, Ware is not entitled to appeal.

CONCLUSION

¶12 For the reasons stated above, we dismiss Ware’s appeal.