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
FI DELI TY N ATI ON AL TI TLE C O M P A N Y , IN C ., a s T ru ste e , an d n o t in i t s corporat e capa ci t y , un der T rustN os. 30, 199 and 60, 104, P lain tiff /A p p e llan t,
v. T O W N O F M A R A N A , a muni ci pal c o rp o r a t i o n , a n d J OC E L YN B RO NS ON, i n hercapa ci t yof Tow n C l er k;

D efen dan t s/A pp el l ees, CAROLYN E. NES S I NGER,

I nt er venor/ A ppel l ee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 C A
- C V 2008- 0189

DEPA RTM ENT B O P I N I O N

APPEAL FROM THE SUPERI OR CO UR T OF PI M A C OU NTY

C aus e N o. C 20082776 H onor abl e J ohn E
. D avi s , J udge REV ERSED A ND REM AN DED
S tu b b s & Sc h u b a r t , P
. C. B yG
. L aw r ence Schubar tand J eff r eyH
. G r eenbe r g T ucs on

A t t or ney s forPl ai nt i ff/A ppel l ant

FEB 13 2009 

### F I L E D BY CLE RK

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

Fr ank C as s i dy , M ar ana Tow n A t t or ney B yC edr i c H ay and A ri zon a C enterfor L aw i n the Pu bli c Int eres t B yJo yE . H e rr-C a rd ill o M ar ana

T ucs on A t t or ney s for D efe ndant s / A ppel l ees
E C K E R S T R O M , Pr es i di ng J udge. ¶1 In th is e x p e d ite d e le c tio n a p p e a l p u rs u a n t to R u le 8 .1 , A ri z . R . C iv . A p p . P ., appel l ant F idelityN at i onal T i t l e C om panyhas appea l ed fr om t he tr i al cour t ’ s entr yof
s u mm a r yj u d g me n ta n d d i s mi s s a l o f i t s s p e c i a l a c t i o n c o mp l a i n t a g a i n s t a p p e l l e e s t h e T o wn of M ar ana and C ar ol yn N es s i nger . Fi del i t y ar gues t he t r i al cour t di s r egar ded t he br i ght
- l i ne
rul e s et for t h i n A r i zona l aw defi ni ng t he event t hat t r i gger s t he runni ng of t he t h i r t y - day p eriod to ch all en g e a rez o n ing o rdin an ce b yref ere n d u m . B ec au se w e a g ree th at t h e c o u rt
err ed i n i t s ap pl i cat i on of the l aw , w e r ever s e the gr antof s um m aryj udgm ent , r emand t he
c a s e , a n d d i r e c tt h e t r i a l c o u r tt o g r a n ts u m m a r y j u d g m e n ti n f a v o ro f F i d e l i t y. ¶2 T h e p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d t o t h e f o l l o wi n g f

a c t s . On Oc t o b e r2 , 2 0 0 7 , t h e T o wn of M ara n a appr oved O r di nance 2007. 27, w hi ch cha nged the zoni ng on a par cel of l and
o w n e d b yF id e litysu b

jec t to c e rta in c o n d iti o n s b e in g m e t. T h e o rd in a n c e p ro v id e d , in
re lev a n t p a rt: T hi s O r di nance s hal l be tr eat ed as havi ng been a dopt ed and the

30- dayr efe r endum per i od es t abl i s hed byA r i zona Revi s ed3 St atut es s ect i on ( “A
. R
. S. §”) 19- 142( D ) s hal l begi n w hen the T o w n fil es w ith the c o u n tyrec o rde r an instrum en t (in a fo rm acc ept abl e t o t he Tow n A t t or ney ) , ex ec u t ed byt he D evel oper and anyot herpar t yhavi ng any ti tl e i nt er es ti n t he R ezoni ng A r ea, t hatw ai ves anypot ent i al cl ai m s agai ns tt he Tow n under t he A r i zona Pr oper t yR igh ts Pr ot ect i on A ct( A
. R
. S. § 12- 1131 et seq. , and s peci fi cal l yA
. R
. S. § 12- 1134) r es ul t i ng fr om change s i n t he l and us e l aw s t hat appl y t o t he R ezoni ng A r ea a s a r es ul tof the Tow n’ s adopt i on of t hi s O r di nance . I f thi s w ai ver i n s tru me n t i s n o t r e c o r d e d wi t h i n 9 0 c a l e n d a r d a y s a f t er t he m o tio n a p p ro v in g th is O rd in a n c e , th is O rd in a n c e sh a ll b e v o id a n d o f n o f o rc e a n d e f

f e c t. T h e o rd in a n c e b e c a m e a v a ila b le to th e p u b lic o n O c to b e r 5 , 2 0 0 7
. ¶3 Soon t her eaf t er , N es s i ngerobt ai ned a r efe r endum pet i t i on fort he or di nance fr om t he t ow n cl er k. T he pet i t i on s t at ed the dea dl i ne forfi l ing i tw as N ovember 8, 2007. L at er , t he Tow n, t hr ough t he cl er k, cont act ed N es s i ngerand advi s ed hert he or di nance had
n o ty e tb e c o me e f

f e c t i v e b e c a u s e t h e p r o p e r t y o wn e r h a d n o tr e c o r d e d t h e wa i v e r . T h e T o wn
as s ur ed N es s i ngeri tw oul d cont act her aft er t he w ai verw as r ecor ded and w oul d pr ovi de her an amended re fer endum pet i t i on. T he T ow n t hen cont act ed N es s i ngeron N ovember 8, 2007, i nfor m ed her t he w ai verhad bee n r ecor ded, and t ol d heran amended r efe r endum pet i t i on w as avai l abl e. T he amended r efe r endum pet i t i on s he obt ai ned fr om t he t ow n cl er k pr ovi ded that t he dea dl i ne forfi l i ng i tw as M onday , D ece m ber10, 2007. N es s i ngerfi l ed the pet i t i on on t hat dat e. T he T ow n acc ept ed t he r efe r endum pet i t i on as t i m el y fi l ed and, o n Jan u ary 2, 20 08 , cert i fi ed thati tcon t ai ned eno ug h si gn atures t o refer the o rdi nan ce t o the voter s. ¶4 Fi del i t ychal l enged the t i m el i nes s of t h e pet i t i on i n a compl ai ntfors peci al
ac ti o n reli ef

fil ed in Pim a C o u n ty S u p erior C o u rt o n A p ri l 2 5 , 2 0 0 8 , req u esti n g that the c o u rt4

or dert he Tow n “ t o c e a s e t he pr oces s i ng of the R efe r endum P et i t i on, i ncl udi ng t he s chedul i ng of an e l ect i on on t he R efe r endum P et i t i on. ” The par t i es s t i pul at ed t o t he re l evantfac t s and
eac h m oved fors um m aryj udgm ent . T he tr i al cour tdeni ed Fi del i t y ’ s m ot i on and gr ant ed
s um m aryj udgm entagai ns ti t . T he cour t ent er ed fi nal j udgm ent on D ece m ber 1, 2008, and t hi s appea l fol l ow ed. ¶5 W hen r evi ew i ng t he gr antof s um m aryj udgm enti n a cas e i n w hi ch the part i es have s t i pul at ed t o t he r el evantfac t s , w e r evi ew de no v o the tr ial cour t ’ s appl i cat i on of t he la w . C a n a d

y v. P resc o tt C a nyo n Estates H o m eo w n ers A ss’n , 204 A r i z. 91, ¶ 6, 60 P. 3d 231, 2 3 2 ( Ap p . 2 0 0 2 )
. T h e Ar i z o n a Co n s t i tu t i o n p r o v i d e s t h a tt h e l e g i s l a t i v e a c t i o n s o f a t o wn
a re s u b je c t to th e re f

e re n d u m p ro c e s s . See A r i z. C ons t . ar t . I V , pt . 1, § 1( 8)
. B utr efe r endum propo nen t s m uststri ct l ycom plyw i t h all con st i tuti on al and st atutoryrequi rem ents . Feldm ei erv. W

at s on , 2 1 1 A ri z. 44 4 , ¶ 1 2 , 1 2 3 P
. 3 d 1 8 0 , 1 8 3 (20 0 5 ). ¶6 Fi del i t y ar gues t hat N es s i nger and t he T ow n fai l ed t o compl ys t r i ct l yw i t h t he t i m el i nes s r equi r ements se t f o rth i n § 19- 142( D ) forchal l engi ng t he or di nance by
r efe r endum. Speci fica ll y , i tcont ends t he eve ntt hatt r i gger ed the t i m e forchal l engi ng t he
or di nance byr efe r endum w as t he t ow n counci l ’ s appr oval of the or di nance on O ctob er2, 2007. T he t r i al cour t di s agr eed, rul i ng i ns t ead t hat t he ful fi l l m entof the Tow n’ s condi t i on foradopti ng t he or di nance
— t he r ecor di ng of a w ai verbyt he appl i cantfort he or di nance t hi r t yday s l at er
— t r i gger ed the t i m e fr ame forfi l i ng a r efe r endum pet i t i on.5

¶7 I n P io n e e r T ru st C o . v . P im a C o u n ty , 168 A r i z. 61, 66- 69, 811 P. 2d 22, 27- 30 ( 1991) , our s upr eme cour taddr es s ed a ne ar l yi dent i cal di s put e. T her e, i thel d t hatt he i ni t i al appr oval of a c ondi t i on- l aden or di nance t r i gger ed th e t i me g o v e rn i n g th e f i l i ng of r efe r endum p e titio n s . I

d. T h e c o u rt re a so n e d th a t “th e lo g ic a l a n d p r a c ti c a l ti m e f o r a re f e re n d u m is
w hen the r ezoni ng i s condi t i onall y ap p rov ed[, ]
. . . s hor t l yaft ert he cont es t ed pr ocee di ngs and publ i c hea r i ngs . ” I d. a t 6 6 , 8 1 1 P .2 d a t 2 7 . T h e c o u rt f u rth e r n o ted : A dopt i ng t h e t i m e of c ondi t i onal r ezoni ng as t he trig g e rin g tim e f

o r a re f e re n d u m a lso p ro v id e s a b rig h t-line ru le eas i l yas cert ai nabl e byal l i nt er es t ed part i es . I f ena ct m entof the fi nal zoni ng or di nance w er e the tr i gger i ng m ec h an i s m , par t i es w oul d be r equired t o m ake r epea t ed che cks t o det er m i ne w hethert he [ legisl at i ve body ] has enac t ed the fi nal zoni ng or di nance . T hus , pr act i cal as w el l as l egal cons i der at i ons l ead us t o c o nclude t hat cond i t i on al app roval of rezon i ng i s a re f e ra b le le g isla tiv e a c t. I d. ¶8 I n 1999, cons i s t entw i t h t he hol di ng i n P i on eer T rust , o u r st ate leg isl ature
e n a c te d § 1 9 -1 4 2 (D ). See 1 9 9 9 A riz . S e ss . L a w s, c h . 9 0 , § 1 ; H aus e v. C i t

y of Tucs on , 199 A r i z. 499, ¶¶ 12- 13, 19 P. 3d 640, 644 ( A pp. 2001)
. T he s ubs ect i on pr ovi des t hat, w hen chal l engi ng a r ezoni ng byr efe r endum, t he cha l l engerm ayfi l e a pe t i t i on “on t he appr oval by t he ci t y or t ow n counci l of the or di nance t hatadopt s t he r ezoni ng oron t he appr oval of t hat por t i on of the mi nut es of the ci t yort ow n counci l t hati ncl udes t he counc i l ’ s appr oval of t he
re z o n in g , w h ich e v e r o c c u rs f irst.” § 1 9 -1 4 2 (D ). A n d , th e th irty -d a yp e rio d w ith in w h ich to6

c h a llen g e th e re z o n in g b e g in s o n th e d a y th a t th e o rd in a n c e o r ap p ro v e d m in u tes a re a v a ilab le fro m the to w n clerk
. § 1 9 -14 2 (A ), (D ). ¶9 T hus , bot h ourl egi s l at u re and s upr eme cour thave made cl eart hatt he
s ubs equentadopt i on of a r ezoni ng or di nance i s nott he tr i gger i ng eventforpurpos es of t he
r i ghtof r efe r endum. T he Tow n’ s at t empt her e t o ci r cumvent t hatcl earm andat e bydel ay i ng t he adopt i on of the or di nance t her efor e had no effe ct on t he st atut or y t r i gger i ng event

— t he appr oval of the or di nance . For t hatrea so n , w e agr ee w i t h Fi del i t yt hatt he t i m e for chal l e n g i n g t he or di nance byr efe r endum began runni ng on O ct ober5, 2007, and the pet i t i ons N e s s i n g e rf

i l e d o v e rs i x t y d a ys l a t e rw e r e u n t i m e l y. ¶10 In rul i ng ot herw i s e, t he tr i al cour tdi s t i ngui s hed P i on eer Trust , f i n d i ng t he
o rdin an ce at i ssu e h ere “inc lud ed lang u ag e ind icati n g that itw o u ld n o t t ak e e ff ec t un ti l th ere
w as compl i ance w i t h t he mandat e of Pr opos i t i on 2 0 7
. T h atw as an i nt egr al par tof t he
or di nance , and n o t a l i s tof condi t i ons as occurr ed i n P i on eer Trust
. ” B u t th e tri al co u rt
over l ooked the fa ctt hat , r egar dl es s of the form of the pr e- cond it ion to adopt i on ort he i m por t ance of thatpr e-co n d it ion t o t he Tow n, t he Tow n appr oved the or di nance att he O ct ober2 m eet i ng and a c opyof the or di nance w as avai l abl e on O ct ober5. A nd, as t he l anguage of § 19- 142( D ) and the hol di ng of P i on eer Trustr equi r e, i ti s t he appr oval of t he
o rd in a n c e ra th e r th a n th e sp e c if ied e f f e c tiv e d a te o f

th e o rd in a n c e th a t trigg e rs th e tim e lim it to c h a llen g e th e leg isla tiv e a c t. ¶11 T h e T o w n e m p h a siz e s th a t th e lan g u a g e o f its o rd in a n c e , w h ich sp e c if ied itsSee A
. R
. S. § 38- 431. 01( A ) ( m eet i ngs of publ i c bodi es m us tbe open t o t he publ i c and 1 al l l egal act i on m us toccurats uch meet i ngs ) ; A
. R
. S. § 38- 431. 02 ( publ i c mustbe gi ven n o tice o f m e e tin g s); see al

so § 38- 431. 01( B ) , ( D ) ( publ i c bodi es m us tkeep w r i t t en mi nut es o r re c o rd in g s o f

a ll m e e tin g s ; m in u tes o r re c o rd in g sh a ll b e m a d e a v a ilab le f o r p u b lic insp ec ti o n three w o rkin g d ay s af ter m ee ti n g ).

7 adopt i on dat e and the dat e fr om w hi ch the r i ghtt o fi l e a r efe r endum pe ti ti o n w oul d run, ful fi l l ed the publ i c pol i cygoal s etfor t h i n P io n e e r T ru st— t o cl ar i fy fo r th e p u b li c and the
re z o n in g a p p lica n t th e trig g e rin g e v e n t f o r a n yc h a llen g e . A n d , w e w o u ld b e re lu c tan t to faul tci t i zens forr el y i ng t o t hei r detr i m enton t he veryt er m s s etfor t h i n t he or di nance w hen t i m i ng t hei rchal l enge t o i t . B ut , w e ca n fi nd no l anguage i n § 19- 142( D ) s ugges t i ng t hatour l egi s l atur e i nt ended t o endow ours t at e’ s s ubdi vi s i ons w i t h t he pow ert o s peci fydi ffe r ent t r i gger i ng event s t han thos e the l egi s l atur e i t s el f s etfor t h i n t he s t atut e. ¶12 Im p o rta n tly , the trig g e rin g e v e n ts s e t f o rth in § 1 9 -1 4 2 (D ) a re su b jec t to p u b lic
n o tice re q u ire m e n ts a n d a re th e p ro d u c ts o f f o rm a l leg isla tiv e a c ts. T h u s, th e ya re “ e a sily 1
as cert ai nabl e byal l i nt er es t ed part i es , ” P i on eer Trust , 1 6 8 A riz . a t 6 6 , 8 1 1 P .2 d a t 2 7 , w h ile the tri g g ering ev en t th e T o w n estab li sh ed in the o rdin an ce ca m e w ith n o alert t o the c it izen ry and coul d occur at any t i m e. T hi s pr act i cal cons i der at i on w as one of the fa ct or s l eadi ng t he
cour ti n P i on eer Trustto ad o p t “t h e t im e of co n d it ion al zo n ing as th e tri g g ering ti m e f o r a
r efe r endum. ” I

d. T her e, t he cour t not ed t hat “[i ] f enact m ent of t he fi nal zoni ng or di nance
w ere t he tri gg eri ng m echan i sm , part i es w ou l d be requi red t o m ake r epeated che c k s to det er m i ne w hethert he B oar d has enac t ed the fi nal zoni ng or di nance . ” I d. W e the ref

o re a reIn th e ir a p p e llate b rie f a n d a t o ra l ar g u m e n t, th e T o w n a n d N e ss in g e r a ttem p ted to 2 r ai s e the affi r m at i ve defens es of l ache s , es t oppel , and w ai ver . B utbeca us e thos e def ens es w er e nei t hers peci fi cal l ypl ed norr ai s ed i n a t i m el yfas hi on t o the tr ial court , w e do not a d d re s s th e a rg u m e n ts f o r th e f ir s t tim e o n a p p e a l. See H egel v. O ’ M al l ey I ns . C o. , 122 A r i z. 52, 56, 593 P. 2d 275, 279 ( 1979) ( aff i r m at i ve def

ens es m us tbe pl ed and pr oven bydefe ndant o r w aive d ); cf. Ma g m a C o p p er C o . v. Ind u s. C o m m ’n , 139 A r i z. 38, 48- 49, 676 P. 2d 1096, 1 1 0 6 -0 7 ( 1 9 8 3 ) ( to p ro p e rlyra ise a f f irm a tiv e d e f

e n se p a rtym u st g iv e su f f icie n t n o tice to all o w o p p o sing p artyto p rod u ce ev iden ce o n the issu e). 8 notper s uaded the Tow n’ s or di nance s er ved t o cl ar i fyt he tr i gger i ng eventfora r efe r endum chal l enge. ¶13 W e al s o fi nd l i t t l e l ogi c i n t he Tow n’ s i m pl i ci t s ugges t i on t hat , as a mat t erof publ i c pol i cy , t he veryl egi s l at i ve bodi es t hathave a ppr ov ed an or di nance s houl d be empow er ed t o det erm ine t he condi t i ons forchal l engi ng i t . T o t he contr ary , publ i c pol i cy favor s uni for m i t yi n t he re ferr al pr oces s
— uni for m i t y t he s t atut or yfr amew or k w as i nt ended to p ro v id e . See A
. R
. S. § 19- 141( A ) ( “The pr ovi s i ons of this c h ap ter sh al l appl yt o t he leg isla tio n o f

c iti e s, to w n s a n d c o u n ties , ex c e p t as sp e c if ica llyp ro v id e d to th e c o n tra ryin th is arti cle.”). ¶14 I ndeed, t hi s cas e i l l us t r at es t he har s h co n seq u en ces t hatcan oc curw hen the
s t atut or yfr amew or k i s notfol l ow ed. A l t hough N es s i ngeri ni t i al l y obt ai ned the r efe r endum pet i t i on att he corr ectt i m e— i m m edi at el yaft ert he t ow n counci l ’ s appr oval of t he
or di nance
— s he w as s ubs equent l y advi s ed by t he t ow n cl er k t hat s he neede d t o w ai tunt i l t he
o rd in a n c e h a d f

o rm a llyb e e n a d o p ted b e f o re sh e c o u ld se c u re a n a m e n d e d p e tit io n a n d b e g in ci r cul at i ng i t for s i gnatur es . T hus , N es s i nger and t hos e ci t i zens w ho s oughtt o chal l enge the 29

or di nance have l os tt hei roppor tuni t yt o do s o beca us e theyr el i ed t o t hei rdetr i m enton t he
err oneous ad v ice o f a governm entoffi ci al w ho purpor t ed t o have both t he know l edge a nd the d u tyto d ir ec t th em . B u t, it is the ch all en g er’s resp o n sibil ity to com p ly w ith the s tatu tory
r equi r ement s for fi l i ng a r efe r endum pet i t i on, and the r ece i ptof err oneous advi ce, even f r om go vernm ental off

i ci al s r espo ns i bl e fo ra dmi ni s t e r i ng the r e fe r end um process, do es not excuse th a t r e s p o n s ib ility. See R ob son R an ch Mtns. , L
. L
. C
. v. P i na lC o u n ty , 2 0 3 A r i z. 120, ¶ 38, 5 1 P .3 d 3 4 2 , 3 5 2 (A p p . 2 0 0 2 ) (“ A re f e re n d u m a p p lica n t’s re c e ip t o f o r re lian c e o n in a c c u ra te advi ce f r om a count y el ect i ons di r ect ordoes notext end the t i m e per i od forfi l i ng t he pet i t i on
o r o th e rw ise e x c u se n o n c o m p lian c e w ith th e sta tu to ryre q u ire m e n ts.” ); accor d P er i ni Land
a n d D e v . C o . v. P im a C o u n ty , 170 A r i z. 3 8 0 , 3 8 1 , 384, 825 P. 2d 1, 2, 5 ( 1992) ( al t hough i s s ue notaddr es s ed di r ect l y , err oneous advi ce fro m countyel ect i ons di r ect orabout ref ere n d u m sign ature s d id n o t exc u se n o n co m p li an ce ). ¶15 W e a re w e ll a w a re th a t, a s th is c a se a n d o th e rs lik e it d e m o n stra te, s e e m in g ly stra ig h tf o rw a rd sta tu to ry re q u ire m e n ts f o r p u rsu in g a re f

e re n d u m a re a t ti m e s m y stif y in g to
a ll b u t th e m o s t s o p h is tic a te d le g a l s p e c ia lis ts . See, e. g. , P i on eer Trust , 168 A r i z. at64- 66, 811 P. 2d at25- 27 ( r eferen d u m chal l enged on gr ound pr oponent s m i s i dent i fi ed r el evant legislat ive a cti o n in co n text o f c o m p lex c o u ntyrules f o r ap p rov al an d ad o p ti o n o f o rdin an ce ); R obs on R anch , 2 0 3 A riz . 1 2 0 , ¶ ¶ 1 7 , 3 8 , 5 1 P .3 d a t 3 4 8 , 3 5 2 (p e tit io n f iled o n e d a ylate beca us e thi r t y - daydeadl i ne r an fr om w hen or di nance w as avai l abl e fro m t ow n cl er k, not
w hen m ade avai l abl e byel ect i ons di r ect or ; r efe r endum i nval i dat ed eve n t hough r efe r endumI ncl uded i n Fi del i t y ’ s chal l enge t o t he val i di t yof th e re fer endum pet i t i on, and the 3 b rie f in g to th is c o u rt, w a s th e a ltern a tiv e c o n te n tio n th a t th e p e tit io n s w e re a rg u a b ly s ubm i t t ed tw o day s l at e w hen the thi r t i eth dayof the dead li n e fe ll o n a w eeke nd, and N es s i ngerfi l ed the pet i t i ons on t he fi r s t day t he cl er k’ s offi ce w as open ther eaf t er . W e nee d no tadd res s this con t enti on i n li gh tof o ur r esol uti on of the case on othergroun ds. 10 pr oponent s “w entt o gr eat l engths ” t o obt ai n corr ectm at er i al s forci r cul at i on and r el i ed on qu e stio n a b le in f

o rm a tio n f

ro m v a rio u s c o u n tyo f

f icia ls); P er i ni Land and D ev. C o. , 1 7 0 A r i z.
a t 3 8 1 , 3 8 4 , 8 2 5 P .2 d a t 2 , 5 (re f e re n d u m in v a lid a ted w h e n p ro p o n e n ts f iled 2 0 ,0 6 5 v a lid
s i gnatur es , aft er el ect i ons di r ect or cal cul at ed thatpr oponent s neede d onl y17, 167 s i gnatur es bas ed on popul at i on at t i m e of el ect i on pr i or t o ci r cul at i on of pet i t i on, butel ect i on occurr i ng b etw ee n d ates f

o r circulati n g an d fil ing p eti ti o n s ch an g ed re q u is ite n u m b er to 2 0 , 1 4 8 ); G ro sv e n o r H

o ld in gs L .C . v. C ity o

f P e o ria , 195 A r i z. 137, ¶¶ 14- 15, 985 P. 2d 622, 626 ( A pp. 1 9 9 9 ) (re f

e re n d u m in v a lid a te d a s u n tim e lyb ysp lita p p e llate p a n e l, w h e n p ro p o n e n ts bel i eved r efe r abl e ac t w as adopt i on of m or e s peci fi c or di nance fol l ow i ng m or e gene r al , and l es s ar t i cul at e, ear l i erappr oval ; butcr i t i ci zi ng “hea ds w e w in, t ai l s y ou l os e” a dvant age
e n jo y e d b yre f

e re n d u m o p p o n e n ts). H o w e v e r , o u r sta te’ s e x p e rie n c e , as re f lec ted in th is 3
cas e and thos e ci t ed above , s ugges t s t hatt he pr ocedur al compl exi t i es o f t he l egi s l at i ve p ro c e ss a n d th e p re su m p tiv e c o st o f o b tain in g leg a l c o u n se l in o rd e r t o su c c e ss f u llyn a v ig a te t he s t atut or yr equi r ement s forr efe r endum i n thatcont extw oul d become al l t he mor e c om pl ex and bur dens om e w er e publ i c bodi es t hr oughoutt he s t at e empow er ed t o devi at e fr om t he sta tu to ryre f

e rra l p ro c e ss a s th e T o w n su g g e sts . N e ss in g e r’s e x p e rie n c e , as o n e w h o tried to abi de byt he l et t erof the s t atut or yr equi r ement s , i s butone exa m pl e.T he Tow n r el i es on F leis c h m a n v . P ro tec t O u r C ity , 214 A r i z. 406, 153 P. 3d 1035 4 (2 0 0 7 ), to a rg u e F id e lityis n o t en tit led to a tto rn e yf e e s b e c a u se “ th e re is n o sta tu to ryb a sis fori t s r eques t . ” I n F l eis chm an , a r efe r endum cas e, t he s upr eme cour t h eld t hatt he chal l enger s w er e notent i t l ed t o t hei rat t or neyfee s on appea l beca us e t h ey cont es t ed the cl er k’ s cert i fi cat i on underA
. R
. S. § 19- 121. 03( B ) , r athert han br i ngi ng a mandam us act i on to c o m p e l th e c le rk to p e rf o rm a c e rt if

ic a tio n . F l eis hm an , 214 A r i z. 406, ¶ 26, 153 P. 3d at 1039. H er e, Fi del i t yas ked the t r i al cour t t o or der t he cl er k “t o cea s e the pr oces s i ng of t he R e f e re n d u m P e titio n , in c lu d in g th e s c h e d u lin g o f a n e le c tio n o n th e R e f

e re n d u m P e titio n ,” pu rs uan tt o R ule 3( a), A ri z. R
. P
. S pec. A ct i on s, w hich r eplaced t he o l d w ri tof m and am us. See A riz . R . P . S p e c . A c tio n s 1 (a ); H om e B ui lders A s s ’ n of

C entr alA r iz . v. C i t

y of Apache Junct i on , 1 9 8 A ri z . 4 9 3 , ¶ 3 1 , 1 1 P .3 d 1 0 3 2 , 1 0 4 2 (A p p . 2 0 0 0 ). T h u s , F l eis chm an does not contr ol t hi s i s s ue. 11 ¶16 For t he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e re ver s e t he gra nt of s um m aryj udgm enti n favor of the Tow n and N es s i ngerand r emand t he cas e t o t he t r i al cour t , w hi ch i s di r ect ed t o ent er
s u m m a r y j u d g m e n ti n f a v o ro f F i d e l i t y. ¶17 Fi del i t yar gues i ti s ent i t l ed t o i t s r eas onabl e at t or ney fee s i ncurr ed i n t he tr i al
cour tpur s uantt o A
. R
. S. § 12- 2030, w hi ch pr ovides tha tr eas onabl e fe es s hal l be aw ar ded
w hen a pa r t ypr evai l s agai ns ta t ow n i n a m andamus- t ype act i on. Fi del i t yhas now pr evai l ed. T her efor e, upon r emand, t he t r i al cour t i s di r ect ed t o ent er t ai n Fi del i t y ’ s r eques t forat t or ney fe es in cu rred in the tr ial co u rtan d to en te r a n a w ard ac co rdin g ly
. W e re ject F idelity ’s 4
re q u e st f o r a tto rn e yf

e e s o n a p p e a l b e c a u se it h a s f a iled to se p a ra telya rticu late a n a p p ro p ria te
s t a t u to ry b a s is f

o r t h a t r e q u e s t. See Bed M ar t , I nc. v. Kel l ey , 2 0 2 Ar i z . 3 7 0 , ¶ 24, 45 P. 3d 1 2 1 9 , 1 2 2 4 (A p p . 2 0 0 2 ) (r e q u e s t f o r a p p e lla te f

e e s u n d e r R u le 2 1 (c ), A ri z . R . C iv . A p p . P ., in su f f icie n t, a s ru le “ d o e s n o t p ro v id e a su b sta n tiv e b a sis f o r a f e e a w a rd ” ); s ee al

s o W
. Sun12

C on tract ors C o. v. Su

peri or C ou rt , 159 A r i z. 223, 232, 766 P
. 2 d 96, 105 ( A pp. 1988) (refu sing to aw ard ap p ell ate a tt o rne yfe es u n d er § 1 2 -20 3 0 w h en n o t t im elyreq u ested ).

____________________________________ PE T E R J
. E C K E R ST R O M , Pr es i di ng J udge CO NC UR RI NG:

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

____________________________________ G A R Y E L
. V Á SQ U E Z , J udge