Court Opinion

ID: 9904974
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-28 16:03:16.651443+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:02.302281
License: Public Domain

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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

                 AHMAD T. SOUGHAR, Plaintiff/Appellant,

                                         v.

                   IRENE MONTOYA, Defendant/Appellee.

                              No. 1 CA-CV 22-0418
                                FILED 11-28-2023

            Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                           No. CV2022-090531
                  The Honorable John R. Hannah, Judge

                                   AFFIRMED

                                    COUNSEL

Mark A. Tucker, P.C., Mesa
By Mark A. Tucker
Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant

Irene Montoya, Phoenix
Defendant/Appellee
                        SOUGHAR v. MONTOYA
                          Decision of the Court

                      MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge James B. Morse Jr. delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Cynthia J. Bailey and Judge Brian Y. Furuya joined.

M O R S E, Judge:

¶1           Ahmad Soughar appeals from the superior court's order
dismissing his eviction action against Irene Montoya. For the following
reasons, we affirm.

             FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2             Montoya entered into a written lease agreement to rent a
home in 2018. In March 2021, Soughar purchased that home. An
addendum to the home's purchase contract assigned Montoya's lease to
Soughar. The addendum described the lease as "month-to-month." A copy
of the lease agreement was attached to the addendum. Section four of that
attached agreement provided the following:

      The Lease shall begin on September 1, 2018, and end on
      August 31, 2028, at which time this lease shall automatically
      continue on a month-to-month basis, with all other terms and
      conditions set forth herein remaining the same, unless the
      party provides written notice to the other one their intention
      to terminate the lease. Notice to terminate the Lease at the
      end of the original term shall be given on or prior to the last
      rental due date of the original term notice [sic] to terminate, if
      on a month-to-month basis, shall be given thirty days prior to
      the periodic rental due date. At Lease termination, Tenant
      shall return all keys as described herein and vacate the
      premises.

¶3           Before this case, Soughar filed three separate eviction actions
against Montoya. He voluntarily dismissed the third eviction action with
prejudice. We dismissed his appeal of that dismissal. See Soughar v.
Montoya, 1 CA-CV 22-0252 (Ariz. App. Jan. 19, 2023) (decision order).

¶4            On November 17, 2021, Soughar mailed Montoya a 30-day
notice to terminate the tenancy. In January 2022, Soughar mailed Montoya

                                      2
                         SOUGHAR v. MONTOYA
                           Decision of the Court

a five-day notice to vacate the property. In February 2022, Soughar filed
this (fourth) eviction action against Montoya, alleging she failed to vacate
the property after receiving proper notice. In his complaint, Soughar
asserted that the parties did not have a written lease and he had properly
terminated a month-to-month tenancy.

¶5             Montoya moved to dismiss and asked for sanctions against
Soughar, contending Soughar failed to disclose the parties' written ten-year
lease to the court. Soughar subsequently amended his complaint to attach
the written lease agreement.

¶6            The court then scheduled a jury trial for March 2022 and
deferred ruling on the motion to dismiss.

¶7            On the trial date, the court treated Montoya's motion to
dismiss as a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Arizona
Rule of Procedure for Evictions Actions 9(e). Soughar argued that, at any
time, either party could terminate the lease with 30-days' written notice,
and he had properly terminated the lease via the November 17 notice to
terminate. Montoya contended that the lease was for a ten-year term that
remains in effect. After oral argument on the motion, the court determined
that the lease was for a ten-year term and Soughar could not terminate it
unilaterally.

¶8           In June 2022, the court entered final judgment for Montoya,
dismissing the complaint and awarding her $15,116.62 in attorney fees and
costs.

¶9            Soughar timely appealed the dismissal, and we have
jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(1).

                               DISCUSSION

¶10            We interpret lease provisions de novo. Terry v. Gaslight Square
Assocs., 182 Ariz. 365, 368 (App. 1994). "[L]eases are to be construed so to
give effect to the intent of the parties; all of the clauses must be considered
and given effect in relation to each other." Roosen v. Schaffer, 127 Ariz. 346,
348 (App. 1980). But we must not interpret one contractual provision in a
way that renders a related provision meaningless. Aztar Corp. v. U.S. Fire
Ins. Co., 223 Ariz. 463, 476, ¶ 45 (App. 2010). And a party does not create an
ambiguity within a lease just because he disagrees with its meaning. In re
Est. of Lamparella, 210 Ariz. 246, 250, ¶ 21 (App. 2005).

                                      3
                        SOUGHAR v. MONTOYA
                          Decision of the Court

¶11            On appeal, Soughar does not dispute that Montoya had a
written lease agreement but argues the lease only created a month-to-
month tenancy, subject to termination by either party with 30-days' notice.
The lease agreement provides for an original ten-year term ending in
August 2028, and automatic renewals on a month-to-month basis
thereafter. Soughar's interpretation—that either party may terminate the
lease at any time with 30-days' notice—renders meaningless both (i) the ten-
year initial term, and (ii) the provisions requiring different times for
termination notices "at the end of the original term" or "if on a month-to-
month basis." The court correctly rejected Soughar's argument. See Aztar
Corp., 223 Ariz. at 476, ¶ 46 ("[A] contrary interpretation would result in an
absurd contract and make the extensions . . . meaningless.").

                                CONCLUSION

¶12           We affirm.

                           AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
                           FILED: AA

                                          4