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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

MARORA CLEMENTINE, et al., 

Plaintiffs/Appellants,

v.

RUGABIRWA RUHORIMBERE, et al., 

Defendants/Appellees.

No. 1 CA-CV 21-0013 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CV2018-014462

The Honorable Joseph P. Mikitish, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Clifford Levenson Attorney at Law, Phoenix

By Clifford I. Levenson

Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants

Law Offices of Kenneth P. Bemis, Tempe

By Kenneth P. Bemis

Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants

Cronus Law, PLLC, Phoenix

By Roger D. Smith

Counsel for Defendants/Appellees

FILED 4-26-2022
CLEMENTINE, et al. v. RUHORIMBERE, et al.

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court, 

in which Judge Brian Y. Furuya and Judge Jennifer M. Perkins joined.

W E I N Z W E I G, Judge:

¶1 Marora Clementine and Mvuyekure Fabrice (“Plaintiffs”) 

appeal from an adverse judgment on their claims for breach of contract, 

issued after a bench trial, and from the superior court’s award of attorney 

fees to Rugabirwa Ruhorimbere (“Defendant”). For the reasons that follow, 

we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 On appeal from a bench trial, we view and thus recount the 

evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the judgment. See Town 

of Florence v. Florence Copper Inc., 251 Ariz. 464, 468, ¶ 20 (App. 2021).

¶3 In late 2015, Defendant and Lilianne Nyambo started a new 

business named H & L Devotion, which would operate senior assisted 

living homes. They were married at the time, and each contributed money 

to the venture. H & L then purchased two assisted living homes.

¶4 A few months later, Plaintiffs sued Lilianne and Defendant 

for breach of an oral “joint business venture.” Plaintiffs alleged that they 

agreed to invest $85,000 into the venture for one-half of its monthly profits.

¶5 The court held a bench trial in June 2020, at which it dismissed 

Lilianne as a defendant based on service of process questions. The court 

heard testimony from several witnesses: Plaintiffs, Defendant, Lilianne, H 

& L’s accountant, and a business appraisal expert. Defendant denied any 

agreement.

¶6 After trial, the court entered judgment for Defendant. Neither 

Plaintiffs nor Defendant sought findings of fact, and the court made none.

The court awarded Defendant his costs and attorney fees. Plaintiffs timely 

appealed. We have jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(1). 
CLEMENTINE, et al. v. RUHORIMBERE, et al.

Decision of the Court

3

DISCUSSION

¶7 Plaintiffs make an assortment of arguments on appeal, many 

of them unsupported by citation to legal authority or the record. We 

remind counsel of this court’s rules. See ARCAP 13(a)(7)(A). And though 

we may assume Plaintiffs have waived their arguments, Ritchie v. Krasner, 

221 Ariz. 288, 306, ¶ 62 (App. 2009) (failure to properly develop argument 

on appeal results in waiver), we exercise our discretion to consider and 

reject them.

¶8 Plaintiffs first challenge the factual basis for the superior 

court’s judgment. We defer to the court’s factual findings unless clearly 

erroneous, giving “due regard to the trial court’s opportunity to judge the 

credibility of witnesses,” but we review legal questions de novo. Town of 

Marana v. Pima County, 230 Ariz. 142, 152, ¶ 46 (App. 2012); Ariz. R. Civ. P. 

52(a)(6). We affirm the court’s judgment if correct for any reason. FL 

Receivables Tr. 2002–A v. Ariz. Mills, LLC, 230 Ariz. 160, 166, ¶ 24 (App. 2012).

¶9 Plaintiffs have shown no error. First, because the superior 

court entered no written findings of fact, this court “must assume that [it] 

found every controverted issue of fact necessary to sustain the judgment.” 

Fleming v. Becker, 14 Ariz. App. 347, 350 (1971). Second, the record offers 

ample support for the superior court’s judgment that Defendant did not 

breach the contract, including the live testimony of Plaintiffs, Defendant,

and H & L’s accountant. See Moore v. Title Ins. Co. of Minn., 148 Ariz. 408, 

413 (App. 1985) (a finding is not erroneous “if there is substantial evidence 

to support it, even though there might be substantial conflicting evidence”). 

We will not reweigh the evidence on appeal. State v. Buccheri-Bianca, 233 

Ariz. 324, 334, ¶ 38 (App. 2013) (“It is not the province of an appellate court 

to reweigh evidence or reassess the witnesses’ credibility.”). 

¶10 Plaintiffs counter with new theories on appeal. “When the 

parties have framed the issues for resolution, they may not change them 

absent an amendment of the pleadings or trial of the issue by consent.” 

Black v. Perkins, 163 Ariz. 292, 293 (App. 1989). Nor can the parties argue 

new theories on appeal. State ex rel. Brnovich v. Miller, 245 Ariz. 323, 324, ¶ 

5 (App. 2018).

¶11 Plaintiffs also contest the superior court’s $18,500 award of 

attorney fees to Defendant under A.R.S. § 12-341.01. An award of attorney 

fees “is discretionary with the trial court,” and we will not disturb it if 

supported by any reasonable basis. See Fulton Homes Corp. v. BBP Concrete, 

214 Ariz. 566, 569, ¶ 9 (App. 2007). Because Plaintiffs show no abuse of 
CLEMENTINE, et al. v. RUHORIMBERE, et al.

Decision of the Court

4

discretion, we affirm the award. This lawsuit lasted almost two years

(including a two-day bench trial), defense counsel supported his request

with relevant records and an affidavit, and the superior court reduced the 

award from what Defendant sought.

CONCLUSION

¶12 We affirm the superior court’s judgment and attorney fees

award. Defendant and Plaintiffs request their attorney fees on appeal 

under A.R.S. § 12-341.01 and ARCAP 21. As the successful party, we award 

Defendant his reasonable attorney fees and costs on appeal under A.R.S. § 

12-341.01, contingent upon compliance with ARCAP 21.