Court Opinion

ID: 9918669
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-16 15:02:08.144082+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:04:36.508516
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

                   INVESTORS AZ LLC, Plaintiff/Appellee,

                                        v.

             KELVIN QUASHIE, et al., Defendants/Appellants.

                             No. 1 CA-CV 23-0296
                              FILED 01-16-2024

           Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                          No. CV2023-005882
            The Honorable Mary C. Cronin, Judge Pro Tempore

                                  AFFIRMED

                                   COUNSEL

Kelvin and Michele Quashie, Avondale
Defendants/Appellants

Zona Law Group P.C., Scottsdale
By Scott E. Williams, Amy N. Toppel
Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee
                      INVESTORS v. QUASHIE, et al.
                          Decision of the Court

                      MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell delivered the decision of the Court,
in which Judge Kent E. Cattani and Judge Anni Hill Foster joined.

C A M P B E L L, Judge:

¶1            This is an appeal from a forcible detainer judgment in favor
of Investors AZ LLC (Investors) and against Kelvin and Michele Quashie.
We affirm.

                              BACKGROUND

¶2            Investors alleged in their forcible detainer complaint that a
third party purchased the Quashies’ home at a trustee’s sale. Later, the third
party transferred the home to Investors, and Investors then demanded that
the Quashies surrender possession. The Quashies failed to comply.

¶3             The court set a telephonic hearing and summoned the
Quashies to appear. Before the hearing, the Quashies made filings
purporting to specially appear, assert a right to subrogation, and move for
dismissal for failure to state a claim. The parties agree that the Quashies
called in to the telephonic hearing, but the record contains no transcript of
the proceeding. The court entered a judgment noting that the Quashies
appeared, adjudicating them guilty of forcible detainer, and assessing
attorneys’ fees and costs against them.

¶4              The Quashies filed a notice of appeal. Some days later, the
sheriff’s office delivered possession of the home to Investors. The Quashies
were thereafter given the opportunity to post a bond for possession
pending appeal, but it appears that they did not do so.

                               DISCUSSION

¶5           We initially address Investors’ argument that we should
dismiss the Quashies’ appeal for failure to comply with the Arizona Rules
of Civil Appellate Procedure (ARCAP). ARCAP Rule 13(a)(5) requires that
an appellant’s brief include a “‘statement of facts’ that are relevant to the
issues presented for review, with appropriate references to the record.”
Similarly, ARCAP 13(a)(7)(A) requires that the appellant’s brief provide
“supporting reasons for each [issue], . . . with citations of legal authorities

                                      2
                      INVESTORS v. QUASHIE, et al.
                          Decision of the Court

and appropriate references to the portions of the record on which the
appellant relies.” The Quashies have provided no citations to the record or
legal authority. And they have provided no transcript, narrative, or
recording to confirm their account of the hearing as required by ARCAP
11(b) to (f). But we decline to summarily dismiss the appeal because we
prefer to decide cases on their merits absent “totally deficient” briefing. See
Adams v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Ariz., 139 Ariz. 340, 342 (App. 1984).

¶6            That said, the Quashies’ failure to provide a record of the
hearing means that we must presume the superior court’s findings were
supported. See Baker v. Baker, 183 Ariz. 70, 73 (App. 1995). We reject the
Quashies’ contentions that the court deprived them of due process, ignored
their arguments, and entered a ruling contrary to the evidence and law. We
also note that the documents attached to Investors’ complaint constitute
substantial evidence in support of forcible detainer findings under A.R.S.
§§ 12-1173(1) and -1173.01(A). See Montano v. Luff, 250 Ariz. 401, 405–06,
¶¶ 12–13 (App. 2020).

¶7             The record before us demonstrates, contrary to the Quashies’
contentions, that the court had personal jurisdiction and that they made a
general appearance in the case. The Quashies were served with process
pursuant to Arizona Rules of Procedure for Eviction Actions 6(c) and 18(f).
See Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Dodev, 246 Ariz. 1, 10, ¶ 29 (App. 2018) (“Proper,
effective service on a defendant is a prerequisite to a court’s exercising
personal jurisdiction over the defendant.” (citation omitted). And they
entered a general appearance in the matter by making pre-hearing filings.
See Kline v. Kline, 221 Ariz. 564, 569, ¶ 18 (App. 2009) (“A party has made a
general appearance when he has taken any action, other than objecting to
personal jurisdiction, that recognizes the case is pending in court.”). Given
the quantum of evidence presented, the court properly found in favor of
Investors.

                               CONCLUSION

¶8            We affirm the forcible detainer judgment. We deny Investors’
request for attorneys’ fees on appeal because Investors fails to identify a
basis for such an award. See ARCAP 21(a)(2) (providing that a claim for
attorneys’ fees on appeal “must specifically state the statute, rule, decisional
law, contract, or other authority for an award of attorneys’ fees,” and that

                                       3
                     INVESTORS v. QUASHIE, et al.
                         Decision of the Court

“[i]f a party fails to comply with this requirement, the appellate court may
decline to award fees on that basis”). As the prevailing party, Investors is
entitled to recover its costs on appeal upon compliance with ARCAP 21.

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

                                       4