Court Opinion

ID: 9366352
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-26 17:02:27.286528+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:51.783891
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

                 YAM CAPITAL III, LLC, Plaintiff/Appellee,

                                        v.

                JOE S. BAILEY, et al., Defendants/Appellants.

                             No. 1 CA-CV 22-0283
                               FILED 1-26-2023

           Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                          No. CV2020-002929
                The Honorable Daniel G. Martin, Judge

                                  AFFIRMED

                                   COUNSEL

Quarles & Brady LLP, Phoenix
By Brian A. Howie, Jason D. Curry, Anthony F. Pusateri
Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee

Walker & Peskind PLLC, Scottsdale
By Richard K. Walker
Counsel for Defendants/Appellants
                     YAM CAPITAL v. BAILEY, et al.
                         Decision of the Court

                      MEMORANDUM DECISION

Vice Chief Judge David B. Gass delivered the decision of the court, in which
Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Cynthia J. Bailey joined.

G A S S, Vice Chief Judge:

¶1            Joe and Annette Bailey appeal the superior court’s ruling
finding enforceable a guaranty executed in favor of YAM Capital III, LLC.
The Baileys also challenge the superior court’s exercise of personal
jurisdiction over them. For the following reasons, we affirm.

               FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2           In October 2017, YAM loaned $7.7 million to GS Hospitality,
LLC (GSH), a company owned and controlled by Joe Bailey. A deed of trust
on a Hollister, Missouri hotel secured the loan, which the Baileys also
personally guaranteed.

¶3            In April 2019, GSH defaulted on the loan. In May 2020, in a
Missouri action, YAM foreclosed on the hotel and sold the related personal
property. YAM purchased the hotel and personal property on credit bids
totaling $4.2 million and credited that amount against the amount GSH still
owed on the loan.

¶4             In March 2020, two months before YAM foreclosed, YAM
filed this Arizona case against the Baileys seeking to enforce the guaranty
and then moved for summary judgment on the guaranty. The Baileys
opposed the motion, arguing: (1) the superior court lacked personal
jurisdiction over them; (2) the guaranty was an unconscionable adhesion
contract; and (3) they were entitled to a credit matching “the fair market
value of the trust property on the date of the sale” under A.R.S. § 33-814.A.
The Baileys later reasserted their personal jurisdiction arguments in a
separate motion to dismiss.

¶5           The superior court denied both motions. Though the superior
court did not find the Baileys’ unconscionability arguments convincing, it
agreed A.R.S. § 33-814.A protections applied. Ultimately, the superior court
found a genuine issue of material fact as to YAM’s damages and denied
YAM’s summary judgment motion. Upon Yam’s request, the superior court

                                     2
                      YAM CAPITAL v. BAILEY, et al.
                          Decision of the Court

clarified the only remaining unresolved issue was “the fair market value of
the collateral on . . . the date of the trustee’s sale.”

¶6            The matter proceeded to an evidentiary hearing. YAM offered
testimony from a real estate appraiser specializing in hotels, who valued
the hotel at $4.47 million. The Baileys offered testimony from a business
valuation expert, who valued the hotel at approximately $8 million. Joe
Bailey also testified he valued the hotel at $11.4 million.

¶7            The superior court found the Baileys’ expert’s testimony
“significantly less persuasive” than YAM’s expert and gave Joe Bailey’s
opinion “very little weight.” The superior court then determined the hotel’s
fair market value was $4.57 million on the date of the trustee’s sale.
Crediting that amount against the outstanding indebtedness, the superior
court entered final judgment against the Baileys for nearly $4.8 million and
awarded YAM a portion of its attorney fees and costs.

¶8              The Baileys timely appealed. This court has jurisdiction under
article VI, section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21.A.1
and -2101.A.1.

                               DISCUSSION

I.     The guaranty’s forum selection clause is enforceable.

¶9            The Baileys renew their argument the superior court lacked
personal jurisdiction over them. Under the guaranty’s forum selection
clause, the Baileys agreed to “submit[] to jurisdiction in any action or
proceeding commenced by [YAM]” in “any superior court of the state of
Arizona.” The Baileys contend the forum selection clause is unenforceable
because it limits only them, not YAM, to filing suit in Arizona.

¶10           A litigant may contractually consent to personal jurisdiction
in a particular forum. See Morgan Bank (Del.) v. Wilson, 164 Ariz. 535, 537
(App. 1990). This court reviews the enforceability of a forum selection
clause de novo. Dunn v. FastMed Urgent Care PC, 245 Ariz. 35, 41, ¶ 22 (App.
2018). This court will invalidate a forum selection clause if:

       (1) the inclusion of the clause in the agreement was the
       product of fraud or overreaching;

       (2) the party wishing to repudiate the clause would effectively
       be deprived of [the party’s] day in court were the clause
       enforced; or

                                      3
                      YAM CAPITAL v. BAILEY, et al.
                          Decision of the Court

       (3) enforcement would contravene a strong public policy of
       the forum in which suit is brought.

RT Auto. Ctr., Inc. v. Westlake Servs. LLC, 253 Ariz. 91, 94, ¶ 9 (App. 2022)
(citation omitted). The challenging party “must meet a heavy burden of
proof, even when the designated forum is a geographically remote
location.” Bennett v. Appaloosa Horse Club, 201 Ariz. 372, 377, ¶ 20 (App.
2001).

¶11           The Baileys do not show YAM fraudulently procured this
term, the term violates public policy, or it deprived them of their day in
court. Indeed, they fully participated in this litigation. See Desarrollo
Immobiliario y Negocios Industriales De Alta Tecnologia De Hermosillo, S.A. De
C.V. v. Kader Holdings Co. Ltd., 229 Ariz. 367, 373, ¶ 18 (App. 2012) (affirming
enforcement of forum selection clause because it did not preclude the
challenging party “from presenting evidence or witnesses”).

¶12            The Baileys also contend they did not have sufficient
minimum contacts with Arizona to justify the superior court’s exercise of
personal jurisdiction. “But when the exercise of jurisdiction is based on the
parties’ consent through a forum selection clause, courts need not conduct
an analysis of the defendant's contacts with the forum.” Desarrollo, 229 Ariz.
at 373, ¶ 19. We, thus, need not analyze the Baileys’ Arizona contacts.

II.    The Baileys did not show the guaranty is unconscionable.

¶13           Next, the Baileys argue the court erred in concluding “[t]he
acquisition of a $7.7 million commercial loan . . . is not, as a matter of law,
the type of contract that in Arizona is subject to an ‘adhesive as
unconscionable’ analysis.” Commercial contracts can be, though rarely are,
unconscionable. See, e.g., Salt River Project Agr. Imp. & Power Dist. v.
Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 143 Ariz. 368, 374 (1984), abrogated on other grounds
by Phelps v. Firebird Raceway, Inc., 210 Ariz. 403 (2005). That being said,
“[o]ur law generally presumes, especially in commercial contexts, that
private parties are best able to determine if particular contractual terms
serve their interests.” 1800 Ocotillo, LLC v. WLB Group, Inc., 219 Ariz. 200,
202, ¶ 8 (2008); see also Tenet Healthsystem TGH, Inc. v. Silver, 203 Ariz. 217,
219, ¶ 7 (App. 2002) (“The nature and extent of a guarantor’s liability
depends upon the terms of the guaranty contract.”).

¶14          The Baileys contend “numerous purported waivers of [their]
. . . rights . . . in the Guaranty amount to nothing less than the
extinguishment of virtually all the rights [they] . . . might ever have had or
imagined having.” Then, they simply list guaranty provisions and claim

                                       4
                      YAM CAPITAL v. BAILEY, et al.
                          Decision of the Court

they are “oppressive and unconscionable.” Neither in their motion to
dismiss nor in their response to YAM’s summary judgment motion do the
Baileys explain the reason any provisions are “oppressive or
unconscionable.” Because the Baileys did not develop this argument, we
need not address it further. See, e.g., Boswell v. Fintelmann, 242 Ariz. 52, 54
n.3, ¶ 7 (App. 2017) (finding waiver when an appellant “fail[ed] to develop
and support [the appellant’s] conclusory arguments”).

III.   The superior court did not err in clarifying its summary judgment
       ruling.

¶15           The Baileys argue the superior court’s clarification ruling
conflicts with its initial ruling denying YAM’s summary judgment motion
and essentially reverses the denial of the motion. We disagree.

¶16           In its initial ruling, the superior court rejected the Baileys’
unconscionability arguments, saying it “easily disposed of” them. Then the
superior court found A.R.S. § 33-814.A protections applied and a genuine
issue of material fact existed regarding YAM’s damages.

¶17            Notably, the superior court commented only on this one fact
question though it discussed the Baileys’ unconscionability, adhesion
contract, and subject matter jurisdiction arguments. The initial ruling, thus,
is consistent with the superior court’s later clarification when it said the
only remaining issue was “the fair market value of the collateral on . . . the
date of the trustee’s sale.” This portion of the initial ruling also renders
irrelevant the Baileys’ argument YAM did not present undisputed damages
evidence with its summary judgment motion.

¶18           The Baileys then contend YAM did not offer undisputed
evidence “to warrant summary judgment on the Baileys’ affirmative
defense asserting a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.”
Assuming the Baileys can assert a breach of the covenant of good faith and
fair dealing as an affirmative defense, they bore the burden to show any
such breach occurred. See, e.g., Millers Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Taylor Freeman Ins.
Agency, 161 Ariz. 490, 496 (App. 1989) (explaining appellants bear the
burden of proving their affirmative defenses). The Baileys cited no evidence
of such a breach in their response to YAM’s summary judgment motion.
Instead, they repeated their unsupported contention the guaranty was
“unconscionable and unenforceable” because of “YAM’s overreaching.” See
Ariz. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3)(B)(ii) (party opposing summary judgment must
present facts establishing “a genuine dispute or otherwise preclude
summary judgment”).

                                      5
                      YAM CAPITAL v. BAILEY, et al.
                          Decision of the Court

IV.    This court does not reweigh the evidence of market conditions on
       appeal.

¶19            Deficiency actions following a trustee sale are governed by
statute. See A.R.S. § 33-814.A. The relevant statute says:

       In any such action . . . , the deficiency judgment shall be for an
       amount equal to the sum of the total amount owed the
       beneficiary as of the date of the sale, as determined by the
       court less the fair market value of the trust property on the
       date of the sale as determined by the court or the sale price at
       the trustee’s sale, whichever is higher. . . . The fair market
       value shall be determined by the court at a priority hearing
       upon such evidence as the court may allow. The court shall
       issue an order crediting the amount due on the judgment with
       the greater of the sales price or the fair market value of the
       real property.

Id. The statute defines “fair market value” as

       the most probable price, as of the date of the execution sale,
       . . . after deduction of prior liens and encumbrances with
       interest to the date of sale, for which the real property or
       interest therein would sell after reasonable exposure in the
       market under conditions requisite to fair sale, with the buyer
       and seller each acting prudently, knowledgeably and for self-
       interest, and assuming that neither is under duress.”

Id.

¶20           The superior court must base its fair market value
determination on the facts and circumstances of each case, and it may rely
on testifying experts’ value opinions. BMO Harris Bank N.A. v. Espiau, 251
Ariz. 588, 592, ¶ 18 (App. 2021). This court will sustain “a result anywhere
between the highest and lowest estimate which may be arrived at by using
the various factors appearing in the testimony in any combination which is
reasonable.” Id. (quoting CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC, 233 Ariz.
355, 362-63, ¶ 25 (App. 2013), vacated in part, 236 Ariz. 410, 415 (2014)).

¶21             The Baileys argue market conditions in May 2020, shortly
after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, made a fair sale impossible, citing
the statute’s reference to “conditions requisite to fair sale.” But they cite no
authority suggesting this language allows the superior court to value the
trust property on any date other than “the date of the sale.” In any event,

                                       6
                      YAM CAPITAL v. BAILEY, et al.
                          Decision of the Court

the parties’ experts disagreed as to whether determining a fair sale was
possible. This court does not reweigh conflicting expert testimony on
appeal. CSA 13-101 Loop, 233 Ariz. at 363, ¶ 25. And to the extent the Baileys
contend the trustee sale in the Missouri action should not have occurred on
May 6, 2020, that issue is not before us.

V.     The superior court did not abuse its discretion when it precluded
       the Baileys’ expert from criticizing the real estate appraisal
       methods of YAM’s expert.

¶22          The Baileys next contend the court erred in finding their
expert was not qualified to criticize the methods of YAM’s expert. A witness
who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or
education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:

       (a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized
       knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the
       evidence or to determine a fact in issue;

       (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;

       (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and
       methods; and

       (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods
       to the facts of the case.

Ariz. R. Evid. 702. This court reviews the superior court’s decision to admit
or exclude evidence under Rule 702 for an abuse of discretion. See McMurtry
v. Weatherford Hotel, Inc., 231 Ariz. 244, 249, ¶ 10 (App. 2013).

¶23           As noted above, YAM’s expert is a real estate appraiser. The
Baileys’ expert, a business valuator, admitted during voir dire he is not a real
property appraiser and has never done a real estate appraisal. He also
admitted he is not licensed as a real estate appraiser and has never been
qualified in any court to testify about real estate appraisals. Though the
Baileys contend business valuation and real estate appraisal are “closely
related,” they present no evidence to support that contention. The superior
court, thus, did not abuse its discretion in concluding the Baileys’ expert
lacked sufficient qualifications to criticize the real estate appraisal methods
of YAM’s expert.

                                       7
                      YAM CAPITAL v. BAILEY, et al.
                          Decision of the Court

VI.    The superior court did not abuse its discretion by excluding two
       pre-sale hotel appraisals.

¶24           The Baileys also argue the superior court erred when it
excluded evidence of two hotel appraisals, one performed in 2015 and one
in 2017. The superior court concluded the Baileys could not use the
appraisals as direct evidence of fair market value because YAM could not
cross-examine their authors. This court will not disturb this ruling absent
an abuse of discretion and resulting prejudice. Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst &
Young, 185 Ariz. 493, 506 (1996). Likewise, the Baileys contend Joe Bailey
provided adequate foundation for the 2015 appraisal, but the court
excluded the appraisals on hearsay grounds.

¶25            Further, the Baileys argue YAM waived all objections to the
appraisals when it listed them in its pretrial designations. But YAM
objected to both appraisals in the joint pretrial statement, and the Baileys
did not argue waiver at the evidentiary hearing. The Baileys also do not
show they suffered any prejudice. The Baileys’ expert relied on the
appraisals in his analysis, and Joe Bailey testified regarding his recollection
of the appraisals. We, thus, reject the Baileys’ waiver argument. See Trantor
v. Fredrikson, 179 Ariz. 299, 300 (1994) (“Because a trial court . . . should be
afforded the opportunity to correct any asserted defects . . . errors not raised
in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal.”).

VII.   The superior court did not abuse its discretion in determining the
       Big Cedar documents were inadmissible to prove fair market
       value.

¶26           The Baileys then argue the superior court erred when it
excluded two contracts—one signed, one unsigned—between third party,
Big Cedar, and YAM. These contracts purportedly reflect Big Cedar’s initial
offer on, and later purchase of, the hotel. The superior court admitted both
documents into evidence but ruled they were inadmissible hearsay as to
fair market value.

¶27           The Baileys do not present any evidence or argument to show
that ruling was erroneous. Instead, they contend YAM waived all objections
by introducing the Big Cedar documents “through its Deposition
Designations, stating that they were ‘admissible for all purposes.’” But
YAM objected to the Big Cedar documents on multiple grounds, including
hearsay, in the joint pretrial statement. The Baileys did not raise waiver at
the hearing, and they only contend on appeal the superior court should

                                       8
                     YAM CAPITAL v. BAILEY, et al.
                         Decision of the Court

have admitted the Big Cedar documents “[a]s a matter of common sense.”
The Baileys, thus, have shown no abuse of discretion.

VIII. Sufficient evidence supports the superior court’s fair market value
      determination.

¶28           The Baileys contend the “[g]reat [w]eight of the [r]ecord
[e]vidence” does not support the superior court’s fair market value
determination. They first criticize YAM’s expert for not performing “an
analysis under the cost approach,” citing United Cal. Bank v. Prudential Ins.
Co., 140 Ariz. 238 (App. 1983). But United Cal. Bank did not say real estate
appraisers must use the cost approach. Instead, in affirming the superior
court’s value findings, this court said the cost approach “‘may yield the
most accurate estimate of value’ where . . . the comparable sales or other
market data are of limited value and the income approach is difficult to
apply because the business is relatively new.” 140 Ariz. at 298 (citation
omitted). This court also said, “income and market approaches . . . may be
appropriate in particular circumstances.” Id.

¶29           YAM’s expert explained his reason for not using the cost
approach, saying “it’s more relevant for proposed properties and a
property that has just opened and does not have an established operating
history” and “does not reflect the way pricing decisions are made by
potential [hotel] buyers” or “the way lenders who lend on existing
properties are evaluating potential loans.” For those reasons, he chose the
income and market approaches, giving the most weight to the income
approach. Though the Baileys’ expert testified he believed the cost
approach was best in this case, the superior court had discretion to resolve
the conflicting expert opinions. See CSA 13-101 Loop, 233 Ariz. at 363, ¶ 25.

¶30            The Baileys also challenge the superior court’s decision to
give “very little weight” to Joe Bailey’s fair market value opinion. An owner
can testify as to the value of his or her property, but the superior court has
discretion to give such testimony the appropriate weight. United Cal. Bank,
140 Ariz. at 303 (citation omitted). Here, Joe Bailey appears to have largely
adopted the conclusions of the 2017 appraisal:

       I wanted to have this motel for my children, my sons, and my
       granddaughters. That was my goal. So I believe it was worth
       11.4 [million] because YAM represented to me, and [the 2017
       appraiser] represented to me, and we all agreed. I agreed with
       them it was worth $11,400,000.

                                      9
                      YAM CAPITAL v. BAILEY, et al.
                          Decision of the Court

He also acknowledged he had no expertise in real estate appraisal. The
superior court’s decision to give his opinion little weight, thus, was not an
abuse of discretion.

                             ATTORNEY FEES

¶31           Both parties request attorney fees under A.R.S. § 12-341.01.A,
which permits a discretionary award to the successful party in an action
arising out of a contract. YAM also cites section 1.8 of the guaranty
obligating the Baileys to pay “all costs and expenses (including court costs
and attorneys’ fees) incurred by [YAM] in the enforcement [of the
guaranty].” This court generally enforces a contractual attorney fee
provision according to its terms. Berry v. 352 E. Va., L.L.C., 228 Ariz. 9, 13,
¶ 17 (App. 2011). But this court retains discretion to limit the award to a
reasonable amount. McDowell Mountain Ranch Cmty. Ass’n v. Simons, 216
Ariz. 266, 270, ¶ 16 (App. 2007).

¶32          Because YAM is the successful party in this appeal, we award
reasonable attorney fees and taxable costs upon compliance with ARCAP
21. Consequently, we deny the Baileys’ fee request.

                              CONCLUSION

¶33           We affirm.

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

                                       10