Kent E. Cattani

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

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

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

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

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

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

This case involved an appeal by Marian S. from a Maricopa County superior court order for involuntary mental health treatment. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the order, which required a combination of inpatient and outpatient treatment (with inpatient care limited to 180 days) after finding by clear and convincing evidence that she was persistently or acutely disabled due to a mental disorder and unwilling or unable to accept voluntary treatment. The court upheld this based on expert affidavits detailing her history of medication non-compliance and decompensation outside supervised settings, despite some testimony of recent compliance, and noted that she did not challenge the disability finding itself.

healthcarecivil rightsprocedure

In State v. Cooper, Javon Coleon Cooper appealed his convictions for first-degree premeditated murder and misconduct involving weapons as a prohibited possessor, along with the resulting sentences, after a jury trial in Maricopa County Superior Court. Cooper raised multiple claims of error, including vindictive prosecution based on the State’s elevation of the murder charge after he rejected a plea offer, flawed jury instructions on self-defense, improper admission or exclusion of evidence, and alleged juror misconduct. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion on the prosecution and evidentiary issues, that the jury instructions adequately covered the law, and that it lacked jurisdiction to review the post-judgment juror misconduct ruling because Cooper had not filed a separate timely appeal from that order.

criminal lawguns

The case involved a lawsuit by the Center for Biological Diversity, the San Pedro Alliance, and an individual landowner against the Arizona Department of Water Resources and Governor Hobbs. The plaintiffs alleged that the Department violated A.R.S. § 45-412(C) by failing for over 20 years to review the Upper San Pedro Basin to determine whether it met the criteria for designation as an active management area for groundwater regulation, and that the Governor had failed in her oversight duty; they sought mandamus, declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court’s dismissal with prejudice. The court reasoned that the statute imposes only a discretionary duty to review “periodically,” without specifying timing or requiring action based on current conditions, and that plaintiffs had not shown an abuse of discretion sufficient to support mandamus. The related claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were likewise rejected for lack of a justiciable controversy and the same discretionary-bar analysis.

environmentprocedure

The case involved Alvaro C.’s appeal from a Maricopa County superior court order terminating his parental rights to his child A.C., who had been removed by the Department of Child Safety in 2024 due to parental substance abuse and neglect; the child was adjudicated dependent, and termination was later granted on the statutory ground of nine months’ out-of-home placement, with a finding that severance served the child’s best interests. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the termination. Father did not contest the statutory ground or best-interests finding on appeal; instead, he argued that paternity had never been established, depriving the court of jurisdiction. The appeals court rejected that claim, noting that the superior court had expressly found paternity established through a filed acknowledgment well before the dependency adjudication, that Father had appeared in the case without objecting, and that he provided no transcript or other evidence to rebut the earlier finding.

family law

In State v. Aguirre, Benjamin Aguirre was convicted after a jury trial of third-degree burglary, a class four felony, based on evidence that he and two others were found on a Phoenix parking garage roof with tools including bolt cutters and a crowbar, cutting copper wire; Aguirre initially denied being on the roof but later admitted he was there briefly and had been paid to act as a lookout. The trial court sentenced him as a repetitive offender to 10 years in prison. On appeal, Aguirre argued that the superior court committed fundamental error by failing to instruct the jury sua sponte on the concept of “mere presence” at a crime scene. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the given instructions on the presumption of innocence, the elements of burglary (including the required intent to commit theft or a felony), and accomplice liability (including the intent to promote the offense) adequately covered the law and made a separate mere-presence instruction redundant.

criminal lawprocedure

In this Arizona case, Donald P. appealed the superior court’s termination of his parental rights to his two young children on the statutory ground of length of felony sentence under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(4), after he received an 11-year prison term for nonviolent offenses and the children were found dependent while he was incarcerated. The Court of Appeals initially remanded for clarified findings on the second Michael J. factor—specifically, the degree to which the parent-child relationship could be continued and nurtured during incarceration—because the original ruling had not made an individualized assessment beyond the inherent limits of prison. After the superior court issued supplemental findings addressing Father’s visits, program participation, and the practical barriers created by the sentence length (including the simultaneous termination of the mother’s rights), the appellate court affirmed the termination, concluding the record supported that the children would be deprived of a normal home for a period of years.

family lawcriminal law

B.H., a 17-year-old, filed a private dependency petition in Maricopa County Superior Court alleging that her father had abused and neglected her—primarily citing an October 2024 incident in which he grabbed her phone, locked her in a bedroom, and briefly restrained her—and that her mother was unable to protect her due to ongoing shared parenting orders. The Department of Child Safety investigated and found the claims unsubstantiated, with no safety threats or fear on B.H.’s part. After an evidentiary hearing, the superior court dismissed the petition, concluding there was insufficient evidence of abuse or neglect and that the mother was a fit and willing parent. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the statutory definition of a dependent child requires the absence of any fit parent and that concerns about parenting time are properly addressed in family court rather than dependency proceedings.

family lawprocedure

In Fadlon v. Cleverly, a divorce case, Marina Fadlon appealed the decree dissolving her marriage to Jack Cleverly, challenging the enforceability of their premarital agreement (which waived spousal maintenance), related temporary orders on property and parenting issues, an attorney’s fees award, and the allocation of costs for a psychiatric evaluation. The Arizona Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal in part for lack of jurisdiction over the attorney’s fees ruling, affirmed the decree’s treatment of the premarital agreement and most other issues, vacated the order requiring Fadlon to pay 100% of the evaluation costs, and remanded that issue. The court held that a pretrial ruling on the agreement’s enforceability was not immediately appealable on its own under Rule 78(b), so it properly reviewed the issue as part of the final decree appeal. It further concluded that Fadlon failed to present sufficient evidence of eligibility for public assistance or the amount of maintenance needed to avoid it, so the statutory exception under A.R.S. § 25-202(D) did not apply to override the waiver.

family lawprocedureproperty

In State v. Kirui, Kenneth Kirui was convicted by a jury of two counts of sexual assault and one count of kidnapping and filed a notice of post-conviction relief (PCR) under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(e), alleging newly discovered material facts while his direct appeal remained pending; the superior court dismissed the PCR proceeding for lack of jurisdiction. The Arizona Court of Appeals granted review and relief, vacating the dismissal and remanding for further proceedings. The court held that the pendency of a direct appeal does not divest the superior court of jurisdiction over a PCR claim based on newly discovered evidence, as the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure expressly contemplate concurrent proceedings and require coordination between the courts in such circumstances. Although some claims may ultimately be precluded under Rule 32.2(a)(1) if they are or could be raised on appeal, that preclusion does not eliminate the superior court’s authority to consider the PCR notice.

criminal lawprocedure

In 1999, Stanley Robert West was convicted after a jury trial of four counts of aggravated DUI with a minor present stemming from a three-car collision in which his two young sons were passengers; officers observed signs of impairment, a drug recognition expert concluded he was impaired by marijuana, and urinalysis detected the non-impairing metabolite Carboxy-THC. After remaining a fugitive for nearly 25 years, West was sentenced in 2024 to probation and filed a delayed appeal challenging the convictions on grounds including incomplete trial transcripts and the use of an eight-person jury. The Arizona Court of Appeals vacated the two convictions based on driving with a marijuana metabolite in the body, holding that A.R.S. § 28-1381(A)(3) requires proof of an impairing metabolite under State ex rel. Montgomery v. Harris and that the record showed only a non-impairing metabolite. The court also vacated erroneous references in the sentencing order to two dismissed possession counts but affirmed the remaining convictions and sentences, ruling that precedent such as Williams v. Florida permits juries of fewer than twelve persons and that Ramos v. Louisiana did not overrule that holding.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Marquez-Barraza, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of unlawful discharge of a firearm and disorderly conduct with a weapon, both class 6 felonies, based on an August 2023 argument with his wife during which she reported he pointed a gun at his stepdaughter and fired a round into the ground; officers recovered a matching spent casing and loaded firearm from his truck, and he admitted firing the gun. The superior court imposed concurrent presumptive 2.25-year prison terms with presentence incarceration credit. Marquez-Barraza’s counsel filed an Anders brief stating no arguable non-frivolous issues existed on appeal, and the defendant filed no supplemental brief. The Arizona Court of Appeals reviewed the full record and affirmed the convictions and sentences, concluding that the defendant was present and represented at all stages, the trial complied with constitutional and procedural rules, the evidence was sufficient to support the verdicts, and the sentences fell within the statutory range.

criminal lawguns

Devin Andrich, a disbarred former attorney, sued his prior counsel Bobby Thrasher and Thrasher Law for claims including abuse of process, conversion of a client file, and aiding conversion, all arising from Thrasher’s representation of Andrich in a criminal case that ended with Andrich’s guilty plea and restitution order. The engagement agreement included a clause requiring binding arbitration of any disputes through the AAA in Phoenix, but Andrich had rejected Thrasher’s earlier demand to arbitrate the same claims in federal court before later filing an arbitration demand that Thrasher declined. The superior court dismissed the suit, but the Arizona Court of Appeals vacated that dismissal and remanded, ruling that the trial court must first decide whether the claims are subject to an enforceable arbitration agreement under A.R.S. § 12-3006(A) and § 12-3007, including whether Andrich waived arbitration by pursuing litigation. The court explained that arbitration agreements are valid and irrevocable except on standard contract-revocation grounds such as waiver through inconsistent conduct, but declined to resolve that fact-intensive issue itself on appeal. If the agreement is enforceable, the superior court must order arbitration without reaching the merits; if not, it may decide the case in the ordinary course.

proceduretorts & liability

In State v. Welfenberg, the State appealed the superior court’s post-verdict grant of a judgment of acquittal on Terry Lee Welfenberg’s conviction for tampering with physical evidence. Welfenberg had been found guilty by a jury of burning the body of a man whose remains were later discovered on rural property where Welfenberg lived, with the tampering charge based solely on that act of burning. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the acquittal. The court held that under A.R.S. § 13-2809(A)(1), as clarified in State v. Larriba-Tucker, a tampering conviction requires proof that the defendant destroyed evidence with the intent to make it unavailable in an official proceeding that was then pending or that the defendant knew was about to be instituted. The record contained no evidence that Welfenberg knew of any imminent official proceeding when he burned the body, as the act occurred well before any investigation began.

criminal law

D&D Farms sued Manuel Alarcon and his trucking business for breach of contract, alleging that Alarcon failed to pay more than $800,000 for hay he obtained from D&D for resale between 2015 and the filing of the suit. After a bench trial, the superior court entered judgment for D&D and precluded Alarcon from calling two witnesses—former D&D bookkeeper Christine Sandate and Basque American Dairy owner Gene Gastelluberry—because Alarcon had disclosed them only sixteen days before the final trial date, nearly seven years after they were added as parties, without providing any description of their expected testimony. On appeal, the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the superior court acted within its discretion under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1) by excluding the untimely and inadequately disclosed witnesses, and that Alarcon’s failure to make an offer of proof prevented any showing that their exclusion caused prejudice.

business & regulatoryprocedure