Cook v. McAllister ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                      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    UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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
    COOK FAMILY TRUST, ROBERT COOK, trustee and individually,
    Plaintiffs/Appellants,
    v.
    SUZANNE MCALLISTER, as trustee of the McAllister Family Trust,
    Defendant/Appellee.
    No. 1 CA-CV 21-0162
    FILED 2-17-2022
    Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County
    No. P1300CV201801025
    The Honorable Michael P. McGill, Judge
    AFFIRMED
    APPEARANCES
    Robert Cook, Prescott
    Plaintiff/Appellant
    Law Office of Russell S. Duerksen, Chino Valley
    By Russell S. Duerksen
    Counsel for Defendant/Appellee
    COOK, et al. v. MCALLISTER
    Decision of the Court
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court,
    in which Judge Brian Y. Furuya and Judge Jennifer M. Perkins joined.
    W E I N Z W E I G, Judge:
    ¶1             Robert Cook, trustee of the Cook Family Trust, appeals the
    superior court’s release of his supersedeas bond to Suzanne McAllister,
    trustee of the McAllister Family Trust. We affirm.
    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    ¶2            McAllister owned a vacant home in Yavapai County. Cook
    lived in the residence for about six years without McAllister’s knowledge
    or permission before suing to quiet title under the doctrine of adverse
    possession. After a bench trial, the superior court found that Cook did not
    prove his adverse possession claim and entered final judgment for
    McAllister, quieting title in her favor and awarding $1,063.62 in costs.
    ¶3            Cook timely noticed an appeal from the final judgment. He
    also moved the superior court to stay enforcement of the judgment and set
    a supersedeas bond. The court twice scheduled Cook’s motion for oral
    argument. Cook twice failed to appear. Even so, the court granted Cook’s
    motion, ordering him to post two bonds “during the pendency of [his]
    appeal,” including (1) a $1,063.62 bond “to stay execution of the monetary
    judgment,” and, assuming he continued living in McAllister’s home, (2) “an
    additional bond of $1,400 per month” as fair market rental value. Cook
    unsuccessfully moved to alter or amend the bonds. He then posted the first
    bond and paid the first month’s rent, but he made no payments in 9 of 12
    months overall.
    ¶4            After all of that, Cook never filed an opening brief in his
    appeal. And so, we dismissed the appeal and our supreme court denied
    review. McAllister moved the superior court to release Cook’s bonds,
    which the court did, ruling the bonds were no longer required because
    Cook lost his appeal.
    ¶5           Cook appealed that ruling to us but only addressed the
    superior court’s earlier judgment rejecting his quiet title lawsuit, which
    2
    COOK, et al. v. MCALLISTER
    Decision of the Court
    prompted the skirmish over supersedeas bonds that permitted Cook to
    pursue an appeal he ultimately abandoned.
    ¶6            To assure our jurisdiction and clarify the scope of appeal, we
    narrowed the issues on appeal to whether the superior court erroneously
    released the bond. See Sorensen v. Farmers Ins. Co., 
    191 Ariz. 464
    , 465 (App.
    1997) (“Although neither party has raised the issue, this court has an
    independent duty to determine whether it has jurisdiction to consider an
    appeal.”). We thus decline to consider Cook’s challenges to the earlier
    judgment. As narrowed, we have jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(2).
    DISCUSSION
    ¶7            The sole issue on appeal is whether the superior court
    erroneously released Cook’s supersedeas bond, which we review for an
    abuse of discretion. See Bruce Church, Inc. v. Superior Court, 
    160 Ariz. 514
    ,
    517 (App. 1989) (“[T]he inherent discretion and power of the trial court
    allow for flexibility in the determination of the nature and extent of the
    security required to stay the execution of the judgment pending appeal.”).
    ¶8             The court did not abuse its discretion. Cook posted the
    supersedeas bonds to pause enforcement and preserve the status quo while
    he appealed the judgment. See ARCAP 7(a)(1). Once this court dismissed
    Cook’s appeal and the supreme court denied review, the bond was no
    longer needed and thus appropriately released. See Kellin v. Lynch, 
    247 Ariz. 393
    , 396, ¶ 13 (App. 2019) (“[T]he purpose of posting a supersedeas bond is
    to preserve the status quo pending appeal.”) (italics in original).
    ¶9            McAllister requests an award of attorney fees and costs
    incurred on appeal under Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 25,
    arguing that Cook’s appeal is frivolous as a “serial appeal of matters that
    have already be[en] decided” or “a matter he had already affirmatively
    consented to in writing.” Cook did not discuss or contest McAllister’s fee
    request in his reply brief.
    ¶10           Rule 25 permits the appellate court in its discretion to award
    reasonable attorney fees if an appeal “is frivolous, or was filed solely for the
    purpose of delay.” ARCAP 25. Rule 25 sanctions are imposed to
    “discourage similar conduct in the future,” ARCAP 25, and we impose
    them with “great reservation,” Ariz. Tax Rsch. Ass’n v. Dep’t of Revenue, 
    163 Ariz. 255
    , 258 (1989). We grant the request for sanctions. The arguments
    Cook makes on appeal are frivolous and unsupported by any reasonable
    legal theory.
    3
    COOK, et al. v. MCALLISTER
    Decision of the Court
    CONCLUSION
    ¶11            We affirm. As the prevailing party, we award McAllister’s
    taxable costs on appeal upon compliance with ARCAP 21.
    AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
    FILED: AA
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1 CA-CV 21-0162

Filed Date: 2/17/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 2/17/2022