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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, 

Plaintiff/Appellee,

v.

EVAN A. KURTZ, et al., 

Defendants/Appellants.

No. 1 CA-CV 21-0379 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CV2018-004772

The Honorable Susan G. White, Judge Pro Tempore, Retired

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Evan A. Kurtz, Phoenix

Defendant/Appellant

McCarthy & Holthus, LLP, San Diego, California

By Melissa Robbins Coutts

Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee

FILED 2-8-2022
US BANK v. KURTZ, et al.

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz and Judge Michael J. Brown joined.

T H U M M A, Judge:

¶1 Defendant Evan Kurtz1 appeals from the superior court’s 

order releasing his supersedeas bond to plaintiff U.S. Bank National 

Association (the Bank). Because Kurtz has shown no error, the order is 

affirmed.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 After purchasing real property at a trustee’s sale in 2018, the 

Bank filed this forcible entry and detainer (FED) action against Evan and 

Gail Kurtz. The court found them guilty of FED and issued a writ requiring 

immediate delivery of possession of the property to the Bank. 

¶3 Kurtz moved to stay execution of the writ pending appeal. 

After a hearing, the court set a supersedeas bond, including monthly rental 

value payments to be made in the future, and granted the stay contingent 

upon Kurtz complying with the bond requirements. See Ariz. Rev. Stat.

(A.R.S.) § 12-1182(B) (2022);

2 see also A.R.S. § 12-1179(D). Kurtz apparently 

deposited the bond amounts, including the monthly rental value payments, 

with the clerk of the superior court. After affirming the FED judgment, and 

other procedural undertakings, in August 2020, this court issued the 

mandate transferring jurisdiction back to the superior court.

1 Though Gail Kurtz is listed as a party, she has not made any filings with 

this court. Evan, who is not an attorney, is proceeding as a self-represented 

party and cannot represent Gail. See Encinas v. Mangum, 203 Ariz. 357, 359 

¶ 8 (App. 2002) (citing cases). 

2 Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited 

refer to the current version unless otherwise cited.
US BANK v. KURTZ, et al.

Decision of the Court

3

¶4 In March 2021, the Bank sold most of its interest in the 

property to Catamount Properties 2018, L.L.C., but retained its right to the 

supersedeas bond proceeds. Kurtz apparently remained in possession of 

the property, with Catamount later filing another FED action. 

¶5 In April 2021, Kurtz asked the superior court to distribute to 

him the supersedeas bond proceeds (including the monthly rental value 

payments), claiming the money “lawfully belongs to him” because the Bank 

was “no longer prosecuting the action and ha[s] sold the subject property.” 

The Bank countered by asking that the proceeds be released to it, noting it 

sold the property to Catamount but that “it did not assign . . . the right to 

receive the bond payments made by Defendants Kurtz.” After considering 

the filings, the court denied Kurtz’ motion and granted the Bank’s request, 

releasing the bond proceeds to the Bank.

¶6 This court has jurisdiction over Kurtz’ timely appeal of that 

ruling pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(2) and Brumett v. MGA Healthcare, 

L.L.C., 240 Ariz. 420, 428-29 ¶¶ 14-15 (App. 2016) (“[C]ompliance with Rule 

54(b) or 54(c) is not required for ‘any special order made after final 

judgment’ to be appealable under A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(2).”).

DISCUSSION

¶7 Kurtz argues that “either U.S. Bank no longer had a legal 

relationship to the property and thus cannot sustain the lawsuit and is not 

entitled to the Bond money or Catamount by virtue of its special warranty 

deed did not have a legal relationship and could not bring its forcible 

detainer action.” This argument, however, does not account for the fact that 

the Bank sold the property to Catamount while retaining the right to the 

supersedeas bond proceeds. 

¶8 Posting a supersedeas bond permits a party to stay 

enforcement of an adverse judgment until the appeals process is complete. 

See A.R.S. § 12-1182(B). Doing so here allowed Kurtz to retain possession of 

the property during the appeal. See A.R.S. §§ 12-1182; 12-1179(D).

Recognizing a purpose of a supersedeas bond is to secure the payment of a 

judgment following its affirmance on appeal, the prevailing party 

presumptively is entitled to the bond proceeds after the conclusion of the 

appeal. Cf. Bobrow v. Herrod, 239 Ariz. 84, 87 ¶ 13 (App. 2015) (“The purpose 

of a supersedeas bond is to preserve the status quo pending appeal.”).

¶9 Here, the appeal process ended in August 2020, when the 

mandate issued transferring jurisdiction back to the superior court. That

court then properly could disburse the bond proceeds, which it did in the 
US BANK v. KURTZ, et al.

Decision of the Court

4

order Kurtz challenges in this appeal. Thus, Kurtz has not proven that these

issues were “never settled or disposed of” or that the purpose of the stay 

implemented by the supersedeas bond remains. See Tri City Nat’l Bank v. 

Barth, 237 Ariz. 90 (App. 2015) (finding superior court lacked authority to 

stay execution of a judgment not currently pending appeal). 

¶10 Moreover, although the Bank sold its interests in the property, 

it represented that it retained the right to the bond proceeds and the record 

contains no genuine dispute of that representation. Thus, although the Bank 

has a claim to the bond proceeds, Catamount would not. Conversely, the 

Bank has no possessory interest in the property, although Catamount may. 

On this record, the Bank is entitled to the proceeds of the supersedeas bond 

paid to the superior court. See also ARCAP 7(b)(1) (noting stay imposed by 

supersedeas bond expires upon the issuance of the appellate court 

mandate); Ariz. R.P. Evict. Act. 17. Thus, Kurtz has shown no error in the 

superior court’s ruling disbursing the supersedeas bond proceeds to the 

Bank.

CONCLUSION

¶11 The ruling releasing the supersedeas bond proceeds to the 

Bank is affirmed.