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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

KELLY JO RAMER, (f.k.a. KRYZER) Plaintiff/Appellant,

v.

LADONNA CATES, Defendant/Appellee.

No. 1 CA-CV 22-0631 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County

No. S8015CV202200029

The Honorable Lee Frank Jantzen, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Kelly Jo Ramer, Ettrick, WI

Plaintiff/Appellant

LaDonna Cates, Kingman, AZ

Defendant/Appellee

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Angela K. Paton delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge D. Steven Williams joined.

FILED 5-18-2023
RAMER v. CATES

Decision of the Court

2

P A T O N, Judge:

¶1 Kelly Jo Ramer appeals the superior court’s entry of judgment 

against LaDonna Cates in the amount of $5,000 for breach of contract, 

arguing that the superior court ought to have awarded additional damages.

For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to affirming the 

superior court’s judgment. Hammoudeh v. Jada, 222 Ariz. 570, 571, ¶ 2 (App.

2009). Ramer sold her home in Kingman to Cates, and the parties executed 

a post-possession agreement allowing Ramer to continue storing her 

personal property at the home until 5:00 p.m. on July 6, 2021. The contract 

provided that Ramer would pay $100 for each additional day of occupancy 

beyond July 6, but did not permit Cates to remove Ramer’s personal 

property without forcible entry and detainer proceedings.

¶3 Ramer did not remove her personal property by the agreedupon date, and on July 10, Cates removed the property from the home and 

placed it on the curb outside. It rained in Kingman shortly thereafter and 

the property was damaged. Ramer eventually moved her property to a 

storage unit.

¶4 The superior court found Cates breached the contract by 

moving Ramer’s property outside of the home and awarded Ramer $5,000 

in damages. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes 

(“A.R.S.”) Sections 12-2101(A)(1) and 12-120.21(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶5 Ramer argues the superior court erred by only awarding her 

$5,000 in damages. Specifically, she argues she should have been 

compensated for both the additional damage to her personal property she

discovered after the trial and emotional damages. She also argues that the 

court incorrectly weighed the evidence to calculate her damages. 

¶6 We will affirm the superior court’s computation of damages 

if any reasonable evidence in the record supports the ultimate facts 

underlying the amount. Gonzales v. City of Phoenix, 203 Ariz. 152, 153, ¶ 2 

(2002). The superior court has “wide latitude” in determining the value of 

damaged goods, and may consider the cost of the property, how long the 

property was used, its condition when damaged, and “any other factors 
RAMER v. CATES

Decision of the Court

3

that will assist in assessing the value to the owner at the time of the loss or 

injury.” Devine v. Buckler, 124 Ariz. 286, 287 (App. 1979). In its order, the 

court noted that Ramer failed to present sufficient evidence to prove the 

damage amounted to her requested amount of $37,000, “or anything close 

to it[]” and determined the $5,000 amount was reasonable based on the 

evidence presented. Ramer did not provide a transcript of the bench trial; 

thus, we must assume that the proceedings below support the superior 

court’s judgment. See Kohler v. Kohler, 211 Ariz. 106, 108, n.1 (App. 2005); 

ARCAP 11(b) (requiring that parties order transcripts they desire to be 

included in the record on appeal).

¶7 Ramer disputes the superior court’s damages computation 

and argues for the inclusion of emotional distress damages. She cites to the 

photographs and list of damaged items she provided to the superior court 

and argues that she was entitled to additional compensation. She does not, 

however, provide any evidence suggesting an erroneous valuation of any 

particular item or group of items or that the amount awarded was 

insufficient to compensate for the damage. In the absence of a clear abuse 

of discretion, we will not substitute our judgment for the superior court.

CONCLUSION

¶8 We affirm.