Court Opinion

ID: 9915088
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-04 17:02:12.00552+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:17:13.973702
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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

                     NANCY BERENT, Plaintiff/Appellant,

                                         v.

         GRAZYNA MROCZKOWSKA, et al., Defendants/Appellees.

                              No. 1 CA-CV 22-0721
                                FILED 1-4-2024

            Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                   Nos. CV2016-095220, CV2017-052655,
                 LC2018-000464-001, LC2021-000100-001
                The Honorable Melissa Iyer Julian, Judge
                     The Honorable Sara Agne, Judge

                                   AFFIRMED

                                APPEARANCES

Nancy Berent, Surprise
Plaintiff/Appellant

Jennings Haug Keleher McLeod LLP, Phoenix
By Joseph A. Brophy
Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Bell West Ranch Homeowner’s Association, Inc.

Brockway Law Office, P.C., Phoenix
By Debra S. Brockway
Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Mroczkowska
                      BERENT v. MROCZKOWSKA
                         Decision of the Court

                      MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.

B R O W N, Judge:

¶1           Plaintiff Nancy Berent appeals the superior court’s judgments
confirming an arbitrator’s award (“Award”) that dismissed her claims
involving a dispute with her neighbors. Because Berent agreed to resolve
the dispute through binding arbitration, and the superior court did not
abuse its discretion in rejecting her subsequent efforts to vacate the
arbitration Award against her, we affirm.

                             BACKGROUND

¶2            In 2017, Berent filed suit against her neighbors, Grazyna and
Marta Mroczkowska, as well as the Bell West Ranch Homeowner’s
Association, Inc. (“Bell West”), collectively (“Defendants”).1 Berent alleged
the Mroczkowskas’ “illegal driveway extension” violated restrictive
covenants.

¶3           After several years of litigation, and shortly before the
scheduled jury trial, Berent’s attorney filed a motion to withdraw, which
the superior court granted. Berent filed an expedited request for a
court-appointed arbitrator, explaining it would not be possible to hire new
counsel with only two weeks to prepare for trial. At the final trial
management conference that same day, Berent confirmed her request for
court-appointed arbitration. The superior court deferred ruling on the
motion, explaining that the parties needed the opportunity to consider their
options and noted the possibility of participating in the court’s Certified
Arbitrator Program (“Program”).2

1      Berent’s son is listed as a plaintiff in the complaint, but he is not a
party to this appeal.

2      The superior court established the Program “to make court
operations and procedures more efficient and responsive to litigants during

                                      2
                      BERENT v. MROCZKOWSKA
                         Decision of the Court

¶4            At a status hearing the following week, after discussing
potential arbitrators and scheduling, the court indicated it would refer the
case to the Program and appoint Judge Kenneth Fields (retired) as the
arbitrator. A minute entry confirming the appointment promptly followed.

¶5            Several days later, Berent filed a motion asking the court to
order Bell West to file a “counterclaim” against its statutory agent and the
Mroczkowskas.       Berent acknowledged she had “requested binding
arbitration” but stated she “cannot do any arbitration” until Bell West “sues
their attorney for legal malpractice.” The court denied the motion,
explaining that Berent had stated “no grounds for any objection” to the
arbitrator, who was appointed “in large part” based on Berent’s request.
The court confirmed its order referring the case to the Program and
explained that Berent “cannot compel another party to file counterclaims.”

¶6              Berent did not meaningfully participate in the arbitration
proceeding. She did not comply with the arbitrator’s order that she disclose
a list of exhibits and witnesses, nor did she cooperate with Defendants to
prepare a joint prehearing statement. On February 22, 2022, the arbitrator
held a scheduling conference via “Zoom video conference,” but Berent did
not attend. Given Berent’s non-cooperation and failure to comply with
orders, the arbitrator ruled that she was “precluded from calling any
witnesses or offering any exhibits” at the arbitration hearing to be
conducted via Zoom on March 24, 2022; however, she would still be
permitted to present an “oral statement” regarding her case. On March 4,
Berent filed a motion stating that she was “waiting for MRI reports and a
diagnosis prognosis for next month on bed rest,” but it is not clear what
relief the motion was seeking. Soon after, she requested a continuance of
the arbitration hearing because “[s]he cannot talk in [a] Zoom meeting from
bed . . . due to [an] injury that was not foreseeable.”

¶7            The arbitrator denied her request for a continuance, after
noting that video clips provided by defense counsel showed Berent
“operating her motor vehicle and picking up items from her driveway on
the date and time she claimed to be bed-ridden” and unable to appear for

the [COVID 19] public health emergency.” See Maricopa Cnty. Super. Ct.,
Admin. Order No. 2021-106 (“Order”). The Order provides that parties
“may stipulate that the results of the arbitration will be binding, meaning
no party may appeal or collaterally attack the binding award except as
allowed by A.R.S. § 12-1501 et seq.” Id. at F.

                                     3
                      BERENT v. MROCZKOWSKA
                         Decision of the Court

the scheduling conference. The arbitrator found Berent was not “credible
due to her past misleading and false assertions.”

¶8            Berent did not attend the arbitration hearing, and the
arbitrator concluded that Defendants prevailed on all claims because Berent
had failed to meet her burden of proof.

¶9           On April 4, 2022, the arbitrator entered the Award in favor of
Defendants. Two days later, Berent moved to vacate the Award, which the
superior court denied, finding that the Award “is binding in this matter,
meaning no Party may appeal or collaterally attack [it] except as otherwise
provided by law.”

¶10           The superior court later enforced the Award by entering final
judgments in favor of Defendants. Berent moved to set aside these
judgments and requested a new trial, asserting she never signed an
agreement consenting to binding arbitration, and the arbitrator “denied
[her] a necessary medical continuance.” The superior court denied these
motions in unsigned minute entries in September and October 2022. Over
the next few months, Berent filed four notices of appeal.3 This court stayed
the appeal until the superior court entered signed minute entries
memorializing its prior rulings denying Berent’s post-judgment motions,
and we have jurisdiction under A.R.S. 12-2101(A)(1).

                              DISCUSSION

¶11            Berent argues the Award should be vacated because she did
not consent to binding arbitration through a written agreement. But she did
not raise this argument in the superior court at any time before the Award
was issued, and in any event, her argument is precluded by the invited
error doctrine. See Sunland Dairy LLC v. Milky Way Dairy LLC, 251 Ariz. 64,
70, ¶ 24 (App. 2021) (“By the rule of invited error, one who deliberately
leads the court to take certain action may not upon appeal assign that action
as error.”) (citation omitted). Berent filed a request for a court-appointed
arbitrator, which she confirmed at the final trial management conference in
open court before the judge and acknowledged in a subsequent motion.
Because Berent expressly requested that the court refer the case to binding
arbitration, she cannot challenge that ruling on appeal. See Forszt v.

3      Although the notices of appeal referenced four different cases,
Berent’s brief only addresses issues arising from Maricopa County Superior
Court No. CV2017-052655.

                                     4
                       BERENT v. MROCZKOWSKA
                          Decision of the Court

Rodriguez, 212 Ariz. 263, 265, ¶ 9 (App. 2006) (noting that an appellate court
may affirm the trial court’s ruling for any reason supported by the record).

¶12            Berent also argues the arbitrator abused his discretion by
denying her request for a continuance despite her illness, and therefore the
judgments should be vacated. We review the superior court’s confirmation
of an arbitration award for an abuse of discretion. See FIA Card Services,
N.A. v. Levy, 219 Ariz. 523, 524, ¶ 5 (App. 2008).

¶13            The superior court denied all relief Berent sought, noting the
Award “is binding in this matter, meaning no Party may appeal or
collaterally attack the Award except as otherwise provided by law.
[Berent’s] filings that succeed the Award provide no legal grounds for an
appeal or collateral attack on the binding Award.” As noted, the Order
establishing the Program states that before a Certified Arbitrator conducts
a hearing, the parties may stipulate that neither of them “may appeal or
collaterally attack the binding award except as allowed by A.R.S. § 12-1501
et seq.” One of the exceptions under the statute is that a party may
challenge an arbitration award in superior court for the arbitrator’s refusal
“to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown.” A.R.S.
§ 12-1512(A)(4).

¶14             Berent arguably challenged the Award under this “sufficient
cause” ground based on her claimed inability to participate in the
arbitration hearing. See id. Berent’s request for a continuance due to
medical issues asserted that she would not be able to talk via Zoom “from
bed . . . due to [an] injury that was not foreseeable.” But none of her filings
with the arbitrator included any documentation of such an injury, nor did
they explain what the injury was, when she sustained it, or why it
prevented her from participating by videoconference. Thus, Berent has not
shown there was sufficient cause to postpone the arbitration proceedings.
And because she has not asserted any other ground under § 12-1512(A) as
a basis for challenging the Award, it is not subject to appeal or collateral
attack. See Order at (F).

¶15           Finally, Berent argues the arbitrator lacked authority to award
attorneys’ fees. The arbitrator awarded attorneys’ fees to Defendants,
subject to submission of timely fee application, but neither defendant
applied for fees. Thus, the issue is moot.

                                      5
                    BERENT v. MROCZKOWSKA
                       Decision of the Court

                           CONCLUSION

¶16           We affirm the superior court’s judgments confirming the
arbitrator’s Award.

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

                                    6