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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

WILLIAM HARRINGTON,

Plaintiff/Appellee,

v.

JESSE RODRIGUEZ, 

Defendant/Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CV 21-0652 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CV2021-052894

The Honorable Gary L. Popham, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Hull Holliday & Holliday, PLC, Phoenix

By Andrew M. Hull, Denise M. Holliday, Kevin W. Holliday, Matthew 

Schlabach, Christopher Hoynicki

Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee

Law Office of Julie Gunnigle, PLLC, Scottsdale

By Julie R. Gunnigle

Counsel for Defendant/Appellant

FILED 9-22-2022
HARRINGTON v. RODRIGUEZ

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

in which Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge D. Steven Williams joined.

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

¶1 Jesse Rodriguez (“Tenant”) appeals the judgment entered for 

Bill Harrington (“Landlord”) in this forcible entry and detainer (“FED”) 

action. Because Tenant’s arguments are not cognizable in a FED action, we 

affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Tenant leased a home from Landlord in April 2011. The 

written lease agreement reflected a month-to-month tenancy. Tenant 

agreed to pay rent of $265 per month; later raised to $350 per month.

Landlord agreed to pay the property taxes and insurance. Although two

signatures appeared on the lease agreement, Tenant contended his 

signature was forged.

¶3 The home was in bad shape when Tenant moved in. 

Landlord paid for the building materials to replace the plumbing, restore 

the roof and install a new porch. Tenant performed much of the labor on 

these projects, although Landlord insisted he paid Tenant for the work.

Tenant also purchased and installed new windows and exterior gates.

¶4 Almost a decade later, Landlord informed Tenant the lease 

agreement would not be renewed and directed Tenant to vacate the home.

Tenant would not leave, and his money orders for rent all failed. Tenant 

wrote the words: “mortgage payment, ” on the last few money orders.

¶5 Landlord filed this FED action. Both Landlord and Tenant 

testified at the evidentiary hearing. Tenant claimed he never signed the 

lease agreement. He instead claimed to have entered an agreement with 

Landlord to purchase the home under a 30-year rent-to-own agreement.

The record had a 2011 form contract in which Landlord offered to sell the 

home to Tenant for $30,000, which included: “[$]2,000 down [and] carry 

back [$]28,000 for 30 [years at] 10%.” Tenant never signed the contract. 
HARRINGTON v. RODRIGUEZ

Decision of the Court

3

¶6 The court found Tenant guilty of forcible detainer and 

awarded possession to Landlord. It awarded Landlord $1,400 in unpaid 

rent and $700 in willful holdover rent, along with his fees, costs and interest.

Tenant timely appeals. We have jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

I. Purchase Contract

¶7 Tenant first argues he had an enforceable oral contract to 

purchase the home from Landlord and the superior court thus erred “when 

it found that [Tenant] was merely a month-to-month tenant.”

¶8 But his argument was not cognizable in the FED action. FED 

actions exist to provide “a summary, speedy and adequate remedy for 

obtaining possession of the premises withheld by a tenant.” Old Bros. 

Lumber Co. v. Rushing, 64 Ariz. 199, 204 (1946). The sole issue is right of 

possession, and “the merits of the title shall not be inquired into.” Id. at 203-

04; see also A.R.S. § 12-1177(A). Indeed, the court may not even consider 

“counterclaims, offsets and cross complaints . . . either as a defense or for 

affirmative relief.” Rushing, 64 Ariz. at 205; see Ariz. R.P. Eviction Actions 

8 (“Unless specifically provided for by statute, no counterclaims, cross 

claims, or third party claims may be filed in eviction actions.”). “This is so 

because the accelerated nature of FED actions does not include disclosure 

or discovery available in general civil litigation.” Iverson v. Nava, 248 Ariz. 

443, 448, ¶ 11 (App. 2020).

¶9 Tenant may still file and pursue a traditional civil action in the 

superior court. See A.R.S. § 12-1183 (“The proceedings under a forcible 

entry or forcible detainer shall not bar an action for trespass, damages, 

waste, rent or mesne profits.”). “[A] judgment in an action of forcible entry 

and detainer is not a bar to subsequent proceedings between the same 

parties in a quiet title suit for the reason that the adjudication of the title is 

not available in such an action.” Rushing, 64 Ariz. at 205.

II. Hot Water and Cooling

¶10 Tenant next argues that Landlord did not provide hot water 

or air conditioning, and contends the FED court should have considered 

those points in the FED action. 

¶11 A landlord must provide hot water and cooling, A.R.S. § 33-

1324(A)(6), and the tenant may secure those essentials on his own if not 
HARRINGTON v. RODRIGUEZ

Decision of the Court

4

provided, and either deduct the expenses from the rent, recover damages, 

or find replacement housing. A.R.S. § 33-1364(A)(1)-(3). 

¶12 The tenant can counterclaim for the expenses in the FED 

action. See A.R.S. § 33-1365(A) (“In an action for possession based upon 

nonpayment of the rent or in an action for rent where the tenant is in 

possession . . . the tenant may counterclaim for any amount which he may 

recover under the rental agreement or this chapter.”). And the tenant may 

retain possession if the FED action was based on nonpayment of rent, and 

tenant’s counterclaim completely offsets the back rent. Id.

¶13 Section 33-1365 does not apply here for at least two reasons. 

First, this action for possession was not based on nonpayment of rent; 

Landlord only terminated a month-to-month tenancy with notice. See 

A.R.S. § 33-1375(B) (“The landlord or the tenant may terminate a month-tomonth tenancy by a written notice given to the other at least thirty days 

prior.”). Second, the statute only provides for a counterclaim, not an 

affirmative defense. Tenant filed no counterclaim here.

CONCLUSION

¶14 We affirm. Landlord requests his attorney fees on appeal but 

provides no basis for that request. See ARCAP 21(a) (“A claim for fees 

under this Rule must specifically state the statute, rule, decisional law, 

contract, or other authority for an award of attorneys’ fees.”). We thus 

decline to award fees, but grant Landlord his costs upon compliance with 

ARCAP 21.