Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
Judge, Court of Appeals of Arizona
HOWELL v. 918 CONSTRUCTION
Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2026-06-26
The case involved homeowners Stephanie Howell and Todd Dieckenhoner suing 918 Construction, LLC, for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and negligence after the company failed to complete a home remodel by agreed deadlines, causing the owners to incur extra living expenses and sell the unfinished property at a loss. After proper service on the company’s owner and statutory agent, 918 Construction did not respond to the complaint or default documents, leading the superior court to enter a default judgment of $924,481 in damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the company’s motion to set aside the judgment under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), holding that the minor misspelling of the company’s name in the caption did not excuse its failure to respond because the correct entity received actual notice and service. The court also found no basis to set aside the judgment for excessive damages or other reasons, as the owners presented supporting evidence at a damages hearing with no opposition from the company.
proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory
Edmark v. Szynklarz-Edmark
Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2026-06-25
In this family law dissolution case, Karl Edmark III (Husband) requested attorney’s fees from his ex-wife Berenika Szynklarz-Edmark (Wife) after she repeatedly delayed signing documents to transfer LLC interests under their November 2024 consent decree, which had resolved property division and other issues. The superior court awarded Husband $16,888 in fees based on Wife’s post-settlement conduct. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the award was proper under A.R.S. § 25-324(A) because the record supported findings on the reasonableness of Wife’s positions—such as her delays, last-minute document modifications, and failure to communicate effectively—and the parties’ financial resources as shown in the decree. The court noted that no findings were requested below, so it presumed the superior court considered all required factors.
family lawproperty
Myers v. Huang
Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2026-05-28
In Myers v. Huang, Clarence Myers appealed a superior court decree dissolving his brief marriage to Guoyu Huang and ordering him to pay Huang $1,000 per month in spousal maintenance for six months. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed, ruling that the superior court did not abuse its discretion in finding Huang eligible for maintenance under A.R.S. § 25-319(A) because he lacked sufficient property and temporary earning capacity due to his immigration status preventing work. The court upheld the award’s amount and duration as consistent with the spousal maintenance guidelines, noting the short marriage length, Huang’s anticipated six-month timeline to obtain work authorization, and Myers’ ability to pay, while presuming the missing trial transcript supported the lower court’s factual findings and credibility assessments.
family lawimmigration
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to B.M.
Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2026-05-14
The case involved Bernice M.’s appeal of a superior court order denying her motion to set aside the termination of her parental rights to her child B.M. After the child was returned to her custody in late 2024 following a prior dependency, Mother relapsed on methamphetamine, leading the Department of Child Safety to file new dependency and termination petitions. She was served by publication after DCS could not locate her, failed to appear at the termination hearing, and had her rights terminated on grounds of chronic substance abuse, 15 months’ out-of-home placement, and prior removal. Nearly three months later, she moved to set aside the ruling, claiming lack of proper notice due to homelessness, incarceration, and a broken phone. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, holding that Mother had not shown good cause for her nonappearance or a meritorious defense to the termination grounds.
family lawprocedure
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to A.C.
Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2026-05-14
This case involved the Arizona Department of Child Safety petitioning to terminate Arqusha C.’s parental rights to her infant son A.C. after the child suffered severe non-accidental injuries, including a traumatic brain injury and skull fracture, which Mother could not plausibly explain and which were inconsistent with her accounts of accidental falls. The superior court found that Mother had abused and neglected the child and that termination was in A.C.’s best interests, citing the child’s vulnerability, the risk of harm if returned to Mother, and the availability of an adoptive placement. On appeal, Mother did not contest the abuse or neglect findings but challenged only the best-interests determination, arguing that her stable housing and employment should have weighed against termination. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the termination order, holding that reasonable evidence supported the superior court’s conclusion that A.C. would benefit from termination given the severity of the injuries, Mother’s limited protective capacities, and the child’s adoptability.
family law
HAISLIP v. AL-SHAWABKEH, Et Ai.
Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2026-05-14
Matthew Haislip and Nizar Al-Shawabkeh orally agreed to jointly own and equally share profits from two smoke shops, with Al-Shawabkeh handling operations and Haislip providing capital; after they separated in early 2023 and divided the businesses, Haislip wrote Al-Shawabkeh two checks to equalize distributions but canceled the second for $2,000 after alleging over $70,000 in unauthorized withdrawals. Haislip sued for breach of contract, fraud, conversion, unjust enrichment, and related claims, while Al-Shawabkeh counterclaimed for breach of their separation agreement. Following a bench trial where a forensic accounting was excluded and no formal business records were presented, the superior court entered judgment for Al-Shawabkeh on all claims, awarding $2,000 in damages plus attorney’s fees and costs. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Haislip failed to meet his burden of proof because the businesses operated informally without documented expenses or profits, Al-Shawabkeh’s testimony credibly explained the transfers as wages, reimbursements, or profit distributions, and Haislip had not requested findings of fact. The fee award was upheld as a proper exercise of discretion under A.R.S. § 12-341.01 given the lack of supporting evidence for Haislip’s claims.
business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability