Michael J. Brown

In this divorce case, Tara Kangas (Mother) appealed a Maricopa County superior court dissolution decree involving her young son with ex-husband Matthew Riordan (Father). The superior court denied Mother’s petition to relocate the child to Alaska, designated Father as the primary residential parent if she stayed there, and limited her parenting time to two six-week periods annually in Alaska, while ordering her to cover travel costs. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the travel-cost allocation and other unaffected portions of the decree but vacated the relocation denial and parenting-time orders, remanding for further proceedings. The court reasoned that the superior court failed to make required specific findings under A.R.S. §§ 25-403(A), -403(B), -408(I), and -403.02(C)(3) explaining how its decisions served the child’s best interests, improperly relied on the possibility of Mother returning to Arizona despite her contrary testimony, and did not fully address all statutory relocation and parenting factors or include a holiday schedule.

family law

In Klatt v. Sunbird Golf Resort Homeowners Association, homeowner Jimmie Klatt sued the Association after it amended the 2015 CC&Rs to create a $300 capital improvement assessment payable by future lot buyers, with the funds usable to maintain or improve the separately owned SunBird Golf Course. The superior court granted summary judgment to Klatt and declared the amendment void. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the amendment was not reasonably foreseeable under the 2015 CC&Rs, which expressly excluded the golf course from association responsibilities and common-area expenses. The court further ruled that Klatt had standing and raised a justiciable controversy because the change affected the marketability of his property and created new financial ties between the Association and the golf course, in line with the foreseeability requirement established in Kalway v. Calabria Ranch HOA.

propertyprocedure

In this case, Kevin Moninger was convicted of luring a minor for sexual exploitation after exchanging messages with an undercover police officer posing as a 13-year-old girl and driving to a planned meeting, leading the trial court to designate the offense as a dangerous crime against children (DCAC) and impose a seven-year prison term. On appeal, Moninger challenged the DCAC enhancement on the ground that no actual minor was involved. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence, holding that the enhancement was proper under the luring statute, A.R.S. § 13-3554. The court relied on the Arizona Supreme Court’s recent decision in State v. Marner, which clarified that neither the luring statute nor the DCAC sentencing provisions require an actual minor victim because the law targets solicitation conduct to protect children as a class.

criminal law

In Leigh v. Chavez, the Arizona Court of Appeals reviewed a Maricopa County superior court order arising from Mother Claryn Leigh’s petition to establish legal decision-making, parenting time, and child support for the parties’ child born in 2016. The superior court awarded Mother sole legal decision-making, required Father Rico Chavez’s parenting time to be supervised due to concerns about his home safety and mental fitness, and ordered him to pay $417 monthly in child support. On appeal, Father challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the court’s decision not to appoint a court-appointed advisor, its weighing of evidence regarding incidents involving the child, and the conditioning of tax exemptions on child-support compliance. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the absence of a trial transcript required it to presume the evidence supported the superior court’s findings under A.R.S. § 25-403, that Father had not shown a due-process violation or improper disregard of evidence, and that the tax-exemption condition was permitted by the Child Support Guidelines.

family law

In Griffith v. Bennett, Daniel Griffith appealed the Coconino County Superior Court’s dismissal of his petition for dissolution of marriage, legal decision-making, and parenting time concerning the parties’ minor child, born in 2023. The core dispute involved whether Arizona or the Navajo Nation had jurisdiction under the UCCJEA, which turns on identifying the child’s “home state” based on where the child lived with a parent for at least six consecutive months before the proceeding began. The superior court dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing, relying on the Navajo Nation court’s earlier protection order and concluding that Father had waived objections by not appearing there. The Arizona Court of Appeals vacated the dismissal and remanded, holding that the superior court must first resolve the disputed facts about the child’s residence to determine home-state jurisdiction, rather than deferring based on the other court’s actions or forum convenience, and must separately address marital and property issues under applicable standards.

family law

The case concerned whether a judge or jury must decide if Robert Blackwell’s multiple prior felony offenses were committed on the “same occasion” under A.R.S. § 13-703(L), which determines whether they count as separate historical prior felony convictions for sentencing enhancement as a repetitive offender. The superior court denied the State’s motion to have a judge resolve the issue based on court records alone and scheduled a jury trial; the State then sought special action review. The Court of Appeals accepted jurisdiction but denied relief, holding that under Apprendi v. New Jersey and Erlinger v. United States, any factual finding beyond the mere existence of a prior conviction—including the same-occasion inquiry based on timing, location, and other circumstances—must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The court rejected the State’s arguments for an efficiency exception or that guilty pleas or objective records could bypass the jury requirement.

criminal lawprocedure

Richard Claxton appealed the superior court's denial of his motion to reopen the 1997 probate of his mother Margaret Claxton's estate, claiming that personal representative Mary Brooks had breached her fiduciary duties by failing to properly fund and manage a $50,000 trust bequest for him, provide accountings or notice, distribute assets according to the will, and timely close the estate; he also alleged fraud and sought to reopen proceedings years later. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the denial. The court held that Claxton's claims were barred by the six-month statute of limitations under A.R.S. § 14-3935, which began running when Brooks filed the closing statement in December 2022, because the July 2025 motion was filed well after the deadline. It further reasoned that Claxton's fraud allegations lacked the required particularity, his inadequate disclosure claims could not stand alone without fraud or misrepresentation, and other arguments were either waived for not being raised earlier or unsupported by the record.

family lawpropertyprocedure

In this probate appeal, Svetlana Nichols sought to intervene in consolidated Maricopa County cases involving the appointment of a guardian ad litem (GAL) and management of her three minor children's tort claims arising from a car accident, following the death of her ex-husband who had previously sued her on the children's behalf. The superior court had appointed a GAL on its own motion, expanded the GAL's authority to retain counsel for the civil litigation, and denied Nichols's motion to intervene despite her status as the surviving parent with sole legal decision-making authority. The Arizona Court of Appeals vacated the denial and remanded, holding that Nichols qualified for intervention as of right under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) because her constitutional due process rights and statutory interests entitled her to notice and an opportunity to be heard in proceedings directly affecting her children's interests. The court noted that the firm representing the children acknowledged Nichols as an interested person but provided no authority to exclude her from participating.

family lawproceduretorts & liability

This case involved a mother appealing the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights to her infant son, W.M., on statutory grounds of abandonment and six months’ time-in-care. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the termination after the mother twice failed to appear at the hearing despite proper notice. The court held that her nonappearance constituted a waiver of rights and admission of the allegations, and that reasonable evidence supported both statutory grounds—based on her sporadic service participation, nearly year-long lack of contact, and refusal of drug testing—as well as the best-interests finding that termination would provide the child permanency through adoption.

family law

In State v. Kirui, Kenneth Kirui was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of sexual assault and one count of kidnapping. The charges arose from an incident in which he met an 18-year-old victim through social media, misrepresented his age, took her to his apartment, gave her a drink that caused her to lose consciousness, and sexually assaulted her; evidence included genital injuries, DNA matching Kirui, and similar other-acts evidence from a Kansas incident. On appeal, Kirui argued that the trial court erred by admitting the other-acts evidence under Arizona Rule of Evidence 404, allowing a sexual assault nurse to testify about the victim’s statements, and depriving him of his right to self-representation by not timely providing him with a jury questionnaire. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that the other-acts evidence was properly admitted, the nurse’s statements fell within the hearsay exception for medical treatment, and any delay in providing the questionnaire did not violate Kirui’s rights because he was given an opportunity to review it and was represented by counsel during voir dire.

criminal lawprocedure

The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s termination of Alondra M.’s parental rights to her five children (V.M., J.M., M.M., E.M., and C.M.) and Marcos R.’s parental rights to C.M. The case arose from a 2022 dependency after reports of neglect, unsafe living conditions, and Mother’s methamphetamine use while caring for the children; the children were later removed when C.M. was born substance-exposed in 2023. Mother repeatedly failed drug tests and did not consistently engage in substance-abuse treatment over several years, supporting termination on substance-abuse and fifteen-months-in-care grounds. Father, who was deported to Mexico shortly after C.M.’s birth and had only minimal contact with DCS until returning in 2024, was found to have abandoned the child under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(1) and (3), as the court determined his lack of outreach and support during the first months of C.M.’s life met the statutory grounds despite his later engagement.

family lawimmigration

In this case, Michelet Michael Smith appealed from the superior court’s denial of his motions challenging an order of protection that his former wife Keeley obtained after he left a note on her car and allegedly violated a prior order. The superior court granted the order, found that Michelet posed a credible threat to Keeley’s safety, prohibited contact and firearm possession, added a federal Brady Indicator after a hearing he missed despite receiving notice, and later denied his requests to modify or reconsider the order. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Michelet raised no debatable issues warranting reversal. The court reasoned that the superior court did not abuse its discretion in proceeding without him after proper notice, that the findings of a credible threat supported the firearm restriction, that only the plaintiff may seek modification of a protective order, and that no due process violations occurred.

family lawgunsprocedure

The case involved a dispute over Michael Donovan’s estate after his death, in which his sister Lisa and her children sought to reform his signed will to add a clause exercising a power of appointment over assets in the Judd Herberger Trust, directing those assets to the children. The signed will omitted any such clause due to an alleged printing error at the attorney’s office, and without it the assets would pass to Holly Herberger DelCastillo under the trust terms. The superior court dismissed the petition, and the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that Arizona statutes require a will to reflect the testator’s signatory intent and that the signed document unambiguously excluded the power of appointment; extrinsic evidence such as the unsigned draft and attorney declaration could not be used to reform it. The court declined to adopt the Restatement’s “modern rule” permitting reformation of wills for mistake, noting that the legislature has not authorized such relief for wills as it has for trusts.

family lawpropertyprocedure

In Dyrek v. Dyrek, Bijen Dyrek appealed two adverse rulings from Maricopa County Superior Court divisions after her 2019 divorce settlement with Christopher Dyrek. The family division denied her petition to set aside the consent decree based on alleged fraud on the court arising from her ex-husband’s representations in the property settlement agreement about potential buyers and valuations of their interest in Cable America Missouri, LLC, while the civil division dismissed her separate tort claims for fraudulent inducement and negligent misrepresentation. The Arizona Court of Appeals vacated both orders and remanded for further proceedings. The court explained that the superior court’s specialized divisions share the same jurisdiction and do not limit available remedies, and that a party may concurrently pursue consistent claims for fraud on the court and tort damages for fraudulent inducement without an election of remedies barring either until one is satisfied. It further held that the lower courts had improperly dismissed the claims on the pleadings without allowing discovery or addressing the merits.

family lawpropertyproceduretorts & liability

In State v. Guerrero, the defendant appealed his conviction for unlawful flight from a law enforcement vehicle after a police chase involving a marked patrol car, emergency lights and siren, a helicopter, and eventual use of a grappler device to stop his car. Guerrero argued that the trial court should have granted a mistrial because a prosecution witness improperly testified that officers were responding to an armed robbery investigation, violating a pretrial order excluding such evidence. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. The court reasoned that although the reference was improper, the State presented strong evidence of guilt—including Guerrero’s post-Miranda admissions that he saw the police lights, heard the siren, and deliberately did not stop—and the trial court twice instructed the jury to disregard the reason for the pursuit and focus only on the elements of unlawful flight. Because there was no reasonable probability that the brief improper testimony affected the verdict, the denial of a mistrial was not an abuse of discretion.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, Mother D.S. appealed the juvenile court’s termination of her parental rights to her child A.S., who was born substance-exposed and removed by the Department of Child Safety due to substance abuse and unstable housing. After the court changed the case plan and DCS moved to terminate rights on grounds of prolonged substance abuse and 15 months out-of-home placement, Mother failed to appear at a pretrial conference while voluntarily entering inpatient treatment; the court found no good cause for her absence, proceeded in her absence, and later denied her motion to set aside the ruling. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Mother received proper notice of the hearing and the consequences of nonappearance, and that her choice to enter treatment without notifying DCS or rescheduling did not qualify as excusable neglect or good cause under Arizona Rule of Procedure for the Juvenile Court 353(f). The court also noted that Mother waived arguments about excusable neglect by not raising them below and failed to present a meritorious defense in her motion to set aside.

family lawprocedure

In this case, a mother appealed a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to her child, arguing that she received improper service of the termination motion and related filings, which violated due process. The Arizona Court of Appeals vacated the termination order as void and remanded the matter. The court held that Arizona Rule of Procedure for the Juvenile Court 303 generally bars assigned counsel from accepting service when a parent has not appeared in the proceeding, and the record showed no valid authorization, general appearance by the mother, or other proper service under the civil rules. The court explained that the juvenile court therefore lacked personal jurisdiction, even though the mother had some actual notice and her counsel had been appointed in a related dependency case involving a sibling.

family lawprocedure

The Arizona Court of Appeals reviewed Sladjan Petkovic’s petition for post-conviction relief after he pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and aggravated assault. Petkovic, who sustained a head wound during a police shootout that caused lasting neurological damage affecting his English comprehension and communication, argued that he was not competent to enter the plea and did not understand the proceedings or the plea agreement. The court granted review and denied relief on the competency and plea-related claims, finding that multiple psychological evaluations showed steady improvement, that Petkovic demonstrated a working understanding of the legal process and plea options in English, and that his answers during the plea colloquy were consistent with his documented deficits rather than a lack of comprehension. No interpreter was ever requested, and the trial court was best positioned to assess his understanding at the time of the plea. Relief was granted in part on an issue not addressed in the excerpted portion of the opinion.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Gastelum, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of one count of molestation of a child and three counts of sexual conduct with a minor, based on allegations that he committed multiple sex acts against a 14-year-old victim at his home on January 1, 2022; the evidence included the victim’s statements to police and a nurse examiner, physical injuries documented in a medical exam, and DNA analysis linking the defendant to the victim. Gastelum appealed under the Anders procedure, arguing that the trial court erred by failing to strike a prospective juror for cause during voir dire and that the prosecutor improperly commented on his decision not to testify. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and consecutive sentences totaling 77 years, holding that the trial court did not commit reversible error in handling the juror or the prosecutor’s statements. The court further concluded that substantial evidence supported the verdicts, as the jury could reasonably credit the victim’s contemporaneous reports to other witnesses over her trial testimony and infer the necessary elements of penetration and contact from the described acts.

criminal lawprocedure

Frank Pineda sued his former domestic partner Johanna Marie Taylor and four other defendants in superior court, alleging claims such as conversion, unjust enrichment, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty arising from a Flagstaff property he conveyed to Taylor by quitclaim deed and other personal items she sold after obtaining protective orders against him. The superior court granted Taylor’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the entire complaint with prejudice as to all defendants. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Pineda abandoned any challenge to the dismissal of most counts by not addressing them on appeal, that the trial court properly granted the motion after he filed no response, and that his opening brief waived all remaining issues by failing to comply with appellate rules requiring citations to the record, legal authority, and a proper argument section.

family lawpropertyproceduretorts & liability