I N TH E CO UR T OF A PP EALS S T AT E OF AR I Z ONA D I V I S I O N T WO STAN M c M UR RA Y an d CH AR LOTTE M cM U R R A Y , hus band and w i fe,

P l ai nti ffs/ A pp el l ees/ C ross -A pp el l ants , v. D R E A M C A T C H E R U SA , I N C
. , an A r i zona c orpor at i on, D e f e n d a n t/A p p e llan t/ C r os s - A ppel l ee. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 C A
- C V 2007- 0165

DEPA RTM ENT B O P I N I O N

APPEAL FROM THE SUPERI OR CO UR T OF PI NA L CO UN TY

C aus e N o. C V 200700357 H onor abl e St ephen F. M cC arvi l l e, J udge

AFFI RM ED
Th e Ko l e s i k La w Gr o u p , P
. L. L. C. B yIva n K o lesi k Jr.

St ruckmey er& W i l s on B yC h ri stop h er J. W il so n an d M arc S
. W ind tberg G oody ear A t t orney s for Pl ai nti ffs/ A p p e llee s/C ro ss -A p p e llan ts

P h o e n ix A tto rn e y s f

o r D e f e n d a n t/ A ppel l ant/ C r os s - A ppel l ee
V Á S Q U E Z , J udge. JAN 30 20 09 

### F I L E D BY CLE RK

C OU RTOF A PP E A LS DI VIS ION TWO2

¶1 In th is acti o n p u rsua n t t o the P u rch ase r D w ell in g A cti o n s A ct (“the A ct”), A
. R. S. § § 1 2
- 1361 t hr ough 12- 1366, defe ndant/ appel l antD r eam C at cherU SA , I nc. ( “D r eam C at cher ”) appea l s fr om t he t r i al cour t ’ s or der deny i ng i t s r eques tforat t or neyfee s fol l ow i ng th e c o u rt’s d ism iss a l o f th e law su it f iled b y S tan a n d C h a rlo tte M c M u rra y . O n c ro ss -a p p e a l, t he M cM ur r ay s ar gue t he cour t err ed i n gr ant i ng D r eam Cat cher ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s . Fort he

r eas ons t hatfol l ow , w e af fi r m t he tr i al cour t ’ s deni al of D r eam C at cher ’ s r eques tforat t or ney fee s and di s m i s s t he M cM ur r ay s ’ cr os s - appea l forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on. Fac t s and Pr oc e dur al Backg r ound ¶2 “I n ourr evi ew of a mot i on t o di s m iss , w e mustacc eptal l m at er i al fac t s as al l eged by t he non- m ovi ng par t yas t rue. ” Sun W or ld C or p. v. P ennys aver

, I nc. , 130 A r i z. 5 8 5 , 5 8 6 , 6 3 7 P .2 d 1 0 8 8 , 1 0 8 9 (A p p . 1 9 8 1 ). In N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 3 , th e M c M u rra y s e n ter e d in to
a con t ract t o hav e D ream C at cher con struct a res i den ce fo r them i n P i nal C ou nty
. In A ug ust 2006, aft erm ul t i pl e cons t ruct i on pr o bl ems, t he M cM ur r ay s fi l ed a c om pl ai ntw i t h t he A riz o n a R e g istra r o f

C o n tra c to rs. In re sp o n se , D re a m C a tch e r o f f e re d to p e rf

o rm re p a irs to
c o rre c t th e d e f

e c ts th e M c M u rra y s h a d a lleg e d . A lth o u g h D re a m C a tch e r su b se q u e n tly

r epai r ed s om e of the def ect s t o t he M cM ur r ay s ’ s at i s fac t i on, ot herdefe ct s rem ained. T he M cM u rray s filed an am en d ed co m p lai n t w ith the R eg istrar af ter hiri n g a c o n stru cti o n ex p ert
w h o d isc o v e re d a d d iti o n a l d e f e c ts. In F e b ru a ry 2 0 0 7 , th e y f iled th is la w su it i n P in a l C o u n ty S u p e rio r C o u rt, alle g in g b re a c h o f c o n tra c t an d o f

a n im p lied c o v e n a n t o f

g o o d f a ith a n d f a ir deal i ng, br eac h of i m pl i ed w arr an ty o f w or km ans hi p, br eac h of i m pl i ed w arr antyof3

habi t ab i l i t ya n d f

i t n e s s o f p u rp o s e , b r e a c h o f

e x p r e s s warr a n t y , f

r a u d , c o n s u me rf

r a ud, in ten tio n a l an d n e g lig e n t m isre p re se n tatio n , an d e sto p p e l. ¶3 D rea m C atch er m o v e d to d ism iss, arg u ing the M cM u rray s h ad fa il ed b ef o re f ili n g th e law su it t o p ro v id e it w ith n o tice a n d a n o p p o rtu n ity to re p a ir p u rsu a n t to th e A c t. I n r es pons e, t he M cM ur r ay s ar gued thatt hei r compl ai ntfi l ed w i t h t he R egi s t r arand D r eam C atch er’s su b seq u en t eff o rt s to m ak e re p airs w ere su ff ici en t to c o m p lyw ith the A ct’s
r equi r ement s . T he t r i al cour t gr ant ed D r eam C at cher ’ s m ot i on, di s m i s s i ng t he ca s e w i t hout prej ud i ce and requi ri ng each p artyt o p ayi t s ow n co st s and att orneyfees. D i s cus s i on Juri s di ct i on ¶4 A lth o u g h n e ith e r pa rty h a s ra ise d th e iss u e , th is co u rt h a s a n in d e p e n d e n t d u ty to d e te rm in e w h e th e r i t h a s ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r a n a p p e a l. D avis v. C es s na A i r cr af tC or p. , 168 A r i z. 3 0 1 , 3 0 4 , 8 12 P. 2d 1119, 1122 ( A pp. 1991)
. “The gener al rul e i s t hatan appe al l i es
o n ly fr om a fi nal j udgm ent
. ” I d. ; see al

so A. R. S. § 1 2
- 2 1 0 1
. Be c a u s e i t i s n ot a fi nal j udgm ent , “[a ] di s m i s s al w i t hout pr ej udi ce i s not appea l abl e and fort hatr eas on al one [a n] appea l of [s uch an] or ders houl d be di s m i s s ed. ” L. B

. N el s on C or p. of Tucs on v. W

. A m . F i n. C or p. , 150 A r i z. 211, 217, 722 P. 2d 379, 385 ( A pp. 1986)
. H er e, t he tr i al cour tdi s m i s s ed t he M cM ur r ay s ’ cl ai m s w i t h o u t pr ej udi ce, and theydo notar gue the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons barr ed the r efi l i ng of any of t he cl ai m s s o t hatt he court ’ s or der“i n eff ectdet erm i ne[d] t he act i on and pr event [ed] fi nal j udgm entfr om w hi ch an a ppeal m i ght[have ] be[e n] t aken. ” SeeT he ei ght

- y ear l i m i t at i ons per i od for t he M cM ur r ay s ’ cl ai m s undert he A cthad not 1 ru n w h e n th e a c tio n w a s d ism iss e d . A .R .S . § 1 2 -5 5 2 ; s ee Lof t s atF i l lm or e C ondo. A s s ’ n v. R el i ance Com m er ci alC ons tr . , I nc. , 218 A r i z. 574, n. 4, 190 P. 3d 733, 737 n. 4 ( 2008) ( not i ng § 12- 552 i m pos es ei ght

- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons fr om s ubs t ant i al compl et i on of dw el l i ng, regar dles s w hetherdefe ct i ve co nst ruct i on dis cov ered du ri ng t hat per io d ); see al so § 12- 1363( H ) ( pur chas er ’ s not i ce unde rA ct“t ol l s t he appl i cabl e st atut e of l i m i t at i ons , i ncl udi ng s ect i on 12- 552, unt i l ni netyday s aft ert he s el l er r ece i ves t he not i ce orfora r eas onabl e per i od agreed to i n w ri t i ng by t he purchaser and sel l er”)
. A nd , t o the ext ent anyof the M cM urr ay s’ cl ai m s ar e cove r ed by ot her s t atut es of l i m i t at i ons , beca us e theyhave notr ai s ed the i s s ue on a p p e a l, w e a re “ ‘p o o rly situ a ted . . . to d e c id e . . . w h e th e r a sta tu te o f lim itatio n h a s ru n to t he poi nt o f barr i ng an ac t i on. ’ ” O s una v. W al

- M ar tSt or es , I

nc. , 214 A r i z. 286, n. 4, 151 P
. 3 d 1 2 6 7 , 1 2 7 1 n .4 (A p p . 2 0 0 7 ), quot i ng Mes a v. U ni t ed Stat es , 61 F
. 3d 20 , 22 n. 6 (1 1 th C i r . 1995) ( fi r s tal t er at i on added)
. I n par t i cul ar , w e l ack s uffi ci enti nfor m at i on t o det erm i ne w hen thes e cl ai m s acc rued and, t her efor e, w hethert he M cM ur r ay s w oul d have been ba r r ed f ro m re f ilin g th e m , thu s g iv in g th e trial c o u rt’s o rd e r th e e f f e c t o f a f in a l ju d g m e n t. M o re o v e r, e v e n tim e -b a rr e d c la im s m a yb e re s u rr e c te d u n d e r A ri z o n a ’s s a v in g s s ta tu te
. See A
. R
. S
. § 1 2 -50 4 (A ). 4 S t a t e ex r e l

. Hes s v . Bo e h r i nger , 1 6 A ri z . 4 8 , 5 1 , 1 4 1 P
. 1 2 6 , 1 2 7 (19 1 4 ). See a l so 1 § 12- 2101( D ) ( appea l m ay be t aken fr om “any or der aff ect i ng a s ubs t ant i al r i ghtm ade i n any act i on w hen the or deri n eff ectdet erm i nes t he ac t i on and pr event s j udgm entfr om w hi ch an
a p p e a l m ig h t b e tak e n ” ). W e th e re f o re lac k ju risd ictio n o v e r th e M c M u rra y s’ c ro ss -a p p e a l. ¶5 H ow ever , a di s m i s s al w i t houtpr ej udi ce “ m aybe ‘ fi nal ’ fort he purpos e of a n
aw ar d of att or neyfee s , ” O s una v. W al

- M ar tSt or es , I

nc. , 214 A r i z. 286, ¶ 10, 151 P. 3d 1267, 1270 ( A pp. 2007) , w hen a de fenda nt ’ s r eques tforr ei m bur s ementw oul d ot herw i s e “be l eft t o tur n upon a pl ai nt i ff’ s l at erdeci s i on as t o w hetherhe w i l l abandon hi s cl ai m orcomm ence
a new act i on, ” C al l anan v. Sun Lakes H om eow ners ’A s s ’ n # 1, I nc. , 134 A r i z. 332, 336- 37, 656 P. 2d 621, 625- 26 ( A pp. 1982)
. W e thus cons i derD r eam C at cher ’ s appea l on t he i s s ue of att orneyfees.A dw el l i ng act i on i s “a n yact i on br oughtbya pur chas eragai ns tt he s el l erof a 2 dw el l i ng ar i s i ng outof orr el at ed t o t he des i gn, cons t ruct i on, condi ti o n o r sal e of the d w ell ing
. ” A
. R
. S
. § 1 2 -13 6 1 (4). 5 A t t orney fe es ¶6 D r eam C at cherar gues t he tr i al cour t err ed i n deny i ng i t s r eques tforat t or ney fe es b ec au se it w a s e n title d to a m an d atoryaw ard o f su ch fe es p u rsua n t t o § 1 2 -13 6 4
. In revi ew i ng a t ri al cou rt ’s decis i on t o deny at t orney fees, w e view t he r ecord i n the l i gh tm ost fa v o rab le t o su stai n ing that d e c is io n a n d w il l up h o ld the co u rt ’s find ing s u n less theyare
c le a rl ye rr o n e o u s . R ow l and v. G r eat St at es I ns . C o. , 199 A r i z. 577, ¶ 31, 20 P. 3d 1158, 1168 ( A pp. 2001)
. I n t he abs ence of expr es s fi ndi ngs , w e maydeem anynece s s aryfi ndi ngs t o be im p lie d in th e c o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t. I d. ¶ 34. T o t he ext ent a t r i al cour t ’ s deci s i on i nvol ved a

m a tte r o f

s ta tu to ry in te rp r e t a t i o n , o u r r e v ie w is d e n o v o . See 4501 Northpoi ntLP v. Ma ric o p a C o u n ty , 2 1 2 A ri z. 98 , ¶ 9 , 1 2 8 P
. 3 d 2 1 5 , 2 1 7 (20 0 6 ). ¶7 In A ri zo n a there is n o g en era l ri g h t to an aw ard o f att o rne yfe es; t h u s, a c o u rt
m ayaw ar d s uch fee s “onl y w hen expr es s l y author i zed bycontr actors t atut e. ” B urke v. A ri z. Stat e R et
. Sys. , 2 0 6 A riz . 2 6 9 , ¶ 7 , 7 7 P .3 d 4 4 4 , 4 4 7 (A p p . 2 0 0 3 ). A n d , “ it is g e n e ra llyh e ld t hata part ys eeki ng a ri g h t o r bene fi tundera s t atut e bea r s t he bur den of pr ovi ng t hathe
comes w i t hi n t he ambi tof the s t atut e, ” H a rv e st v . C ra ig , 195 A r i z. 521, ¶ 15, 990 P. 2d 1080, 1 0 8 3 (A p p . 1 9 9 9 ), a n d is e n title d to s u c h a n a w a rd
. W o e rth v . C ity o

f F la gsta ff , 167 A r i z. 4 1 2 , 4 1 9 , 8 0 8 P
. 2 d 2 9 7 , 3 0 4 (A p p . 1 9 9 0 ). ¶8 Sect i on 12- 1364 pr ovi des i n par t t hat , “[i ] n any cont es t ed dw el l i ng act i on, t he
cour t s hal l aw ar d t he s ucce s s ful par t y r eas onabl e at t or ney fee s . ” A ccor di ng ly , the 2B eca us e w e dec i de thi s cas e on di ffe r ent gr ounds , w e need notaddr es s w hether , as 3 M cM urr aycon t end s, t he co m plai nt fi l ed w i t h the R egis trarand D ream C at cher’ s at tem p ts to re p a ir c o n stitu te p ro p e r n o tice u n d e r th e A c t. W e n o te th a t D re a m C a tch e r c h a llen g e d th is p ro p o sitio n b e lo w a n d o n a p p e a l. 6 d isp o sitiv e iss u e is w h e th e r D re a m C a tch e r is a “ su c c e ss f u l p a rty ” a s c o n tem p late d b yth is
s ect i on. I n c o n s tru i n g a s t a tu t e , o u r “ p r i ma r y g o a l
. . . i s t o g i v e e f f e c t t o t h e i n t e n t of t he l egi s l atur e. ” C or nm an Tw eedy 560, LLCv. C i t y of C as a G r ande , 213 A r i z. 1, ¶ 8, 137 P. 3d 3 0 9 , 3 1 1 (A p p . 2 0 0 6 ). “ T h e la n g u a g e o f a s ta tu te is th e m o s t r e lia b le e v id e n c e o f its in te n t.” W a lke r v . C ity o

f Sc o ttsda le , 1 6 3 A riz. 20 6 , 2 0 9 , 7 8 6 P
. 2 d 1 0 5 7 , 1 0 6 0 (A p p . 1 9 8 9 ). Fur t her m or e, “the w or ds of a s t atut e m us t be construed i n conj unct i on w i t h t he ful l t extof t he s t atut e. ” G olderv. D ep’ tof R eve nue , 1 2 3 A ri z. 26 0 , 2 6 5 , 5 9 9 P
. 2 d 2 1 6 , 2 2 1 (19 7 9 ). ¶9 H e re , th e A c t re q u ire s a p u rc h a se r t o p ro v id e w ritten n o tice o f a lleg e d d e f e c ts p rio r to f ili n g a n a c tio n . T h e se ller m u s t r e s p o n d w ith in six tyd a y s a n d m a yin c lu d e in its
re sp o n se “ a n o f

f e r to re p a ir o r re p lac e a n ya lleg e d d e f e c ts, to h a v e th e a ll e g e d d e f e c ts
r epai red orr epl ace d att he s el l er ’ s expens e ort o pr ovi de monet arycompensa t i on t o t he pur chas er . ” § 12- 1363. Sect i o n 1 2 -13 6 4 defi nes “s ucce s s ful par t y ” onl yi n t erm s of the di s par i t ybetw een s uch an of ferand the fi nal j udgm ent
. I f the s el l er ’ s offe r“i s r ej ect ed and th e ju d g m e n t f

in a lly o b ta in e d is le s s th a n o r l e s s f a v o ra b le to th e p u rc h a s e r t h a n th e o f f e r,” th e se ller is d e e m e d to b e th e su c c e ss f u l p a rty
. § 1 2 -1 3 6 4
. In o th e r w o rd s, w h e th e r a p a rty i s “ s u c c e s s f

u l ” i s d e t e r mi n e d f

o l l o wi n g a f

i n a l r e s o l u t i o n o f

t h e p u r c h a s e r ’ s u n d e r l y i n g c l a i m. ¶10 T he tr i al cour tfound thatt he M cM ur r ay s had fa i l ed t o pr ovi de not i ce t o D r eam C atch er a s req u ir ed u n d er the A ct an d , b y im p li ca ti o n , that there w as n o co rresp o n d ing o ff er. 37

See Row l and , 1 9 9 Ar i z . 5 7 7 , ¶ 3 4 , 2 0 P
. 3 d 1 1 5 8 a t1 1 6 8
. I n a n ye v e n t , t h e u n d e r l y i n g c l a i ms have notbeen f

i nal l yr es ol ved bec aus e the courtdi s m i s s ed the l aw s ui tw i t houtpr ej udi ce. C ons equent l y , D r eam C at chercoul d notbe a “ s ucce s s ful par t y ” as cont em pl at ed by§ 12- 1364. B as ed on the pl ai n l anguag e o f the A ct , w e agr ee w i t h t he tr i al cour t ’ s concl us i on. See C or nm an Tw eedy , 2 1 3 A riz . 1 , ¶ 8 , 1 3 7 P .3 d a t 3 1 1 ; W alker , 163 A r i z. at209, 786 P. 2d at1060. ¶11 D r eam C at chernevert hel es s cont end s that, fort he purpos e of a n aw ar d of
a tto rn e yf

e e s , “ a p a rt yis a ‘s u c c e s s f u l p a rt y ’ a f

te r o b ta in in g a d is m is s a l w ith o u t p re ju d ic e .” I n s uppor tof i t s ar gum ent , D r eam C at cherr el i es on M ark Light i ng F i

xt ur e C o. , I

nc. v. G en. E l ec. Suppl

y C o. , 155 A r i z. 65, 67, 745 P. 2d 123, 125 ( A pp. 1986)
. H ow ever , t hatcas e w as
vaca t ed byour s upr eme c our t , w hi ch decl i ned on r evi ew t o r eac h t hi s i s s ue i n t he cont extof a di ffe r ents t atut e. 155 A r i z. 27, 32, 745 P. 2d 85, 90 ( 1987) ( decl i ni ng t o r es ol ve “w hether at t or ney s ’ fee s m aybe aw ar ded underA
. R
. S. § 12- 341. 0 1 w her e the compl ai nti s not d ispo sed o f o n the m erit s”). ¶12 D ream C at cher al so ci t es H ar r is v. R es er ve Li

f e I ns . C o. , 158 A r i z. 380, 385, 762 P. 2d 133 4 , 1 3 39 ( A pp. 1988) , i n s uppor tof i t s pos i t i on. I t s r el i ance on H a rr is is

m i s pl ace d fort w o r eas ons . Fi r s t , t hatcas e i nvol ved an a w ar d of cos t s underA
. R
. S. § 12- 341, notat t or neyfee s under§ 1 2 -13 64. W her e a s t atut e’ s l anguage i s “cl earand

u n e q u iv o c a l,” w e d o n o t co n sid e r o th e r so u rc e s, su c h a s d e c isio n s c o n stru in g a rg u a b ly
a n a lo g o u s s t a t u te s . See Low i ng v. A l l s t at e I ns . C o. , 176 A r i z. 101, 103- 04, 859 P. 2d 724, 726- 27 ( 1993)
. Second, t o t he ext entt he r el evantpar tof the H a rr is deci s i on i t s el f r el i ed on8

Mar k Light i ng , it d id s o in a p p ro p ri a te ly. “V a c a te d c a s e s h a v e n o p re c e d e n tia l v a lu e .” W e r th e im v . P im a C o u n ty , 2 1 1 Ar i z . 4 2 2 , n . 2 , 1 2 2 P. 3 d 1 , 5 ( App
. 2 0 0 5 )
. Dr e a m Ca t c h er has t her efor e fai l ed t o es t abl i s h i tw as a “s ucce s s ful par t y ” undert he A ct
. W e thus fi nd no
err or i n the cou rt ’s requi ri ng each p artyt o p ayi t s ow n att orneyfees. D i s posi t i on ¶13 For the rea s ons s t at ed above , w e di s m i s s t he M cM ur r ay s ’ cr os s - appea l and aff i r m t he tr i al cour t ’ s j udgm entw i t h resp ec t to a t t or neyfee s . B eca us e nei t herpar t yhas pr evai l ed o n it s resp ect i ve cl ai m s , w e denybot h par t i es ’ r eques t s foran aw ar d of att or ney f e e s o n a p p e a l. S e e Ka m a n A e ro sp a c e v . A riz . B d . o f R eg e n ts , 217 A r i z. 148, ¶¶ 37- 38, 171 P
. 3 d 5 9 9 , 6 0 9 (A p p . 2 0 0 7 ).

____________________________________ G A R Y E L
. V Á SQ U E Z , J udge CO NC UR RI NG:

____________________________________ PE T E R J
. E C K E R ST R O M , Pr es i di ng J udge

____________________________________ J
. W I L L I A M B R A M M E R , J R
. , J udge