Court Opinion

ID: 9894037
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-31 15:03:13.311678+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:02.837961
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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

                    HOUSEOPOLY, LLC, Plaintiff/Appellee,

                                         v.

                       SKY BOLES, Defendant/Appellant.

                              No. 1 CA-CV 22-0035
                               FILED 10/31/2023

           Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                          Nos. CV2021-014886
                            CV2022-050569
                            CV2022-050424
          The Honorable Mary Collins Cronin, Judge Pro Tempore

                                   AFFIRMED

                                    COUNSEL

Zona Law Group PC, Scottsdale
By Scott E. Williams, Amy Toppel, Mark B. Zinman
Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee

Sky Boles, Phoenix
Defendant/Appellant
                    HOUSEOPOLY LLC v. SKY BOLES
                        Decision of the Court

                      MEMORANDUM DECISION

Vice Chief Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the court, in
which Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig and Judge D. Steven Williams
joined.

H O W E, Judge:

¶1            Sky Boles appealed the superior court’s order denying her
motion to set aside the judgment. This court issued a decision dismissing
the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Houseopoly LLC v. Boles,
1 CA-CV 22-0035, 2022 WL 17491554 (App. Dec. 8, 2022). Boles then
petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court for review of this court’s decision.
The supreme court granted the review, vacated this court’s decision, and
remanded to this court for further proceedings. On remand, we construe
the superior court’s judgment as a default judgment and Boles’s motions as
a single motion to set aside that default judgment. We affirm.

                    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2           We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the
superior court’s ruling on a motion to set aside a default judgment. Ezell v.
Quon, 224 Ariz. 532, 534 ¶ 2 (App. 2010). In January 2021, Houseopoly, LLC
purchased at a sheriff’s sale the home in which Boles lived. Houseopoly
then demanded Boles vacate the property. Boles did not vacate the property
and Houseopoly filed a forcible detainer action. Houseopoly attached to the
complaint the demand for possession that it had mailed to Boles on
September 15, 2021.

¶3            The superior court set a hearing on the action for October 15,
2021. Boles moved to continue the hearing arguing that she was recovering
from surgery and was suffering from nocturnal seizures. She supported her
motion with a form dated September 29, 2021, with instructions for the day
of surgery. She also provided a progress note dated October 11, 2021, which
showed her medical history, an assessment, and treatment plan. The
preparing nurse practitioner noted that Boles had “denie[d] any seizures”
and that her “[m]emory attention span and fund of knowledge [were]
generally normal and unremarkable.” The court granted Boles’s motion
and continued the hearing to November 1, 2021. The court also set the trial
date for November 15, 2021.

                                     2
                    HOUSEOPOLY LLC v. SKY BOLES
                        Decision of the Court

¶4              Boles appeared at the November 1, 2021 hearing and pled not
guilty. The court then ordered Boles to file an answer by November 8, 2021,
and dispositive motions by November 10, 2021. It warned Boles that her
failure to file an answer would result in a default judgment in Houseopoly’s
favor. Boles failed to file the answer or dispositive motions by the deadline.
Boles also failed to appear at the trial. The superior court then entered
default judgment, granting the forcible detainer.

¶5            Boles filed post-judgment motions to (1) quash the writ of
restitution and vacate the judgment for medical cause; (2) extend the time
to answer due to medical hardship; and (3) extend the time to file
dispositive motions due to medical hardship. Boles argued that the default
judgment should be set aside because she had recently suffered nocturnal
seizures. She attached to the motions the same progress note that she
provided in support of her motion to continue the October 15, 2021 hearing.
She also provided a doctor’s note dated October 13, 2020, which instructed
her not to work or drive because of the recent head trauma she had suffered.

¶6            The superior court denied Boles’s motions. Boles timely
appealed the order denying her motions. This court has jurisdiction under
A.R.S. § 12–2101(A)(2).

                                  DISCUSSION

¶7             Boles argues that the superior court abused its discretion in
denying her motion to set aside the default judgment because she showed
medical hardship. Generally, this court reviews the superior court’s order
denying relief from a judgment for an abuse of discretion. Gonzalez v.
Nguyen, 243 Ariz. 531, 533 ¶ 8 (2018). This court reviews de novo, however,
the denial of a motion to vacate a void judgment for lack of jurisdiction.
Ezell, 224 Ariz. at 536 ¶ 15.

¶8             Forcible entry and detainer actions are governed by the Rules
of Procedure for Eviction Actions (“Rules”). See Rule 1. Boles’s motion to
set aside the default judgment was brought under Rule 15(a), although not
explicitly cited. As relevant here, Rule 15(a) allows a party to move to set
aside a judgment if the moving party shows that the court lacked
jurisdiction to hear the case or the party failed to answer because of
“[m]istake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” See Rule 15(a)(1),
(4).

¶9             Here, not only did Boles not cite Rule 15(a) in her motion, but
she also did not identify any of the subsections under which she requested
relief. She claimed, however, that the superior court lacked jurisdiction to

                                      3
                    HOUSEOPOLY LLC v. SKY BOLES
                        Decision of the Court

enter the default judgment and that she had recently suffered nocturnal
seizures. We thus construe her arguments as claims that the default
judgment should have been set aside under subsections (1) and (4).

I.    Relief Under Rule 15(a)(1)

¶10           Boles argues that the superior court lacked jurisdiction to
enter the default judgment. A judgment is void if “the court lacked
jurisdiction over the subject matter, over the person, or over the particular
judgment or order entered.” Master Fin., Inc. v. Woodburn, 208 Ariz. 70, 74
¶ 19 (App. 2004). We understand her argument to be that the court lacked
jurisdiction because she did not receive a demand for possession.

¶11          The record betrays Boles’s claim. The record shows that
Houseopoly mailed the demand for possession via certified mail on
September 15, 2021. Moreover, Boles’s appearance at the November 1, 2021
hearing further shows that she received Houseopoly’s written demand for
possession. As a result, her argument fails.

¶12            Boles also argues that the homeowners’ association lacked
jurisdiction to foreclose the property because she did not owe any monies
to it. But she does not point to anything in the record to support her claim.
See MacMillan v. Schwartz, 226 Ariz. 584, 591 ¶ 33 (App. 2011) (“Merely
mentioning an argument in an appellate opening brief is insufficient.”).
And our review of the record reveals no evidence that supports her claim.
Boles has shown no error.

II.   Relief Under Rule 15(a)(4)

¶13            To set aside a judgment under Rule 15(a)(4), the moving party
must show, among other things, “[m]istake, inadvertence, surprise, or
excusable neglect” in failing to answer. Addison v. Cienega, Ltd., 146 Ariz.
322, 323 (App. 1985). “The general test of what is excusable is whether the
neglect or inadvertence is such as might be the act of a reasonably prudent
person under the same circumstances.” Coconino Pulp & Paper Co. v. Marvin,
83 Ariz. 117, 120 (1957) (citation omitted). “[M]ere carelessness” does not
warrant setting aside a default judgment. Daou v. Harris, 139 Ariz. 353, 359
(1984) (citation omitted). “Diligence is the final arbiter of whether mistake
or neglect is excusable.” Aloia v. Gore, 252 Ariz. 548, 552 ¶ 15 (App. 2022)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

¶14          The superior court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Boles’s motion to set aside the default judgment. Boles provided only three
documents relevant to her medical hardship: (1) a form dated September

                                     4
                    HOUSEOPOLY LLC v. SKY BOLES
                        Decision of the Court

29, 2021, with instructions for the day of surgery, (2) a progress note dated
October 11, 2021, and (3) a doctor’s note dated October 13, 2020, advising
Boles not to drive or work because of the recent head trauma she had
suffered. All three documents were issued before the October 15, 2021
hearing, which the court continued. Boles then appeared at the continued
November 1, 2021 hearing. By appearing, Boles demonstrated that her
medical condition no longer prevented her from appearing in court or
answering the action. Further, even though Boles claimed that she suffered
nocturnal seizures, the progress note showed that “[s]he [had] denie[d] any
seizures.” Therefore, because Boles did not show that her failure to answer
was excusable, the superior court did not err.

¶15           Boles also argues that medication she was taking for her
nocturnal seizures caused her memory loss, which in turn caused her to
mistakenly believe she had filed an answer. But she cites nothing in the
record that supports her claim. See MacMillan, 226 Ariz. at 591 ¶ 33. In fact,
the progress note showed that, after a general examination, her “[m]emory
attention span and fund of knowledge [were] generally normal and
unremarkable.” On this record, Boles has not shown the superior court
erred.1

1      Boles also argues that the superior court erred in consolidating two
other cases she initiated with the case from which this appeal arises. But the
appeal from the minute entries consolidating those cases is separate from
this one and was dismissed because those minute entries were not
substantively appealable under A.R.S. § 12–2101(A)(2). We therefore do not
address Boles’s argument on the issue.

                                      5
                   HOUSEOPOLY LLC v. SKY BOLES
                       Decision of the Court

                                 CONCLUSION

¶16           We affirm. Boles’s request for compensation for time lost is
denied. Houseopoly requests its costs and attorneys’ fees under Arizona
Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 21, but that rule does not establish a
substantive basis for awarding fees. As the prevailing party, however,
Houseopoly is entitled to its costs on appeal upon compliance with Arizona
Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 21.

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

                                      6