Majorenkova v. Hrubec

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz.R.Sup.Ct. 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz.R.Crim.P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE IN RE THE MATTER OF: SILVIE MAJORENKOVA, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. GEORGE J. HRUBEC, Defendant/Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DIVISION ONE FILED: 11/02/10 RUTH WILLINGHAM, ACTING CLERK BY: DLL 1 CA-CV 09-0626 DEPARTMENT D MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 28, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. FC 2004-013605 The Honorable Kenneth Skiff, Judge Pro Tem AFFIRMED George J. Hrubec Defendant/Appellant In Propia Persona Phoenix I R V I N E, Judge ¶1 George J. Hrubec ( Hrubec ) appeals the family court s decision affirming an order of protection entered against him. For the reasons family court. that follow, we affirm the judgment of the FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1 ¶2 Hrubec and Silvie Majorenkova ( Majorenkova ) divorced in May 2005. After the divorce, Majorenkova had a number of orders of protection issued against Hrubec. The subject of this appeal is a July 31, 2009 order of protection. The family court held a hearing considering the on the matter testimony of on both September parties 2, and 2009. the After evidence presented, the family court found there was reasonable cause to believe that [Hrubec] has committed an act of domestic violence within the last year, specifically harassment. The court ordered that the July 31, 2009 order of protection be affirmed and continued in full force and effect. Hrubec timely appealed. DISCUSSION 2 ¶3 Hrubec argues the family court erred in renewing the 1 Pursuant to Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure ( ARCAP ) 13(a)(4), an appellant s opening brief must contain a statement of facts with appropriate references to the record. This Court may disregard statements of facts that do not comply with Rule 13. Lansford v. Harris, 174 Ariz. 413, 417 n.1, 850 P.2d 126, 130 n.1 (App. 1992). Accordingly, we do not consider Hrubec s statement of facts because he fails to cite to the record as required. In this case, the facts set out in the decision are based on our own examination of the record. 2 As an initial matter, we note that the order of protection had already expired by the time the appeal came before this panel. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3602(L) (2010) (an order of protection expires one year after it is served). Hrubec did not seek accelerated review pursuant to ARCAP 29. Because our decision may have consequences beyond the present proceeding, we do not dismiss Hrubec s appeal as moot. 2 order of protection because he provided ample evidence to demonstrate that Majorenkova s claims of years of harassment w[ere] complete[ly] false. 3 ¶4 A transcript of the proceedings was not made part of the record on appeal. As the appellant, Hrubec was obligated to mak[e] certain the record on appeal contains all transcripts or other documents necessary for us to consider the issues raised. Baker v. Baker, 183 Ariz. 70, 73, 900 P.2d 764, 767 (App. 1995); see also ARCAP 11(b). Generally, in the absence of a transcript, we presume it supports the family court s factual findings and rulings. Kohler v. Kohler, 211 Ariz. 106, 108 n.1, ¶ 8, 118 P.3d 621, 623 contains n.1 (App. 2005). an outline of The the family court s discussion, minute including entry the consideration of testimony and evidence presented. Furthermore, Hrubec s argument on appeal is essentially a request for a different weighing of the evidence, which is not appropriate for appellate review. Hurd v. Hurd, 223 Ariz. 48, 52, ¶ 16, 219 P.3d 258, 262 (App. 2009). 3 Majorenkova has not filed an answering brief, which we may regard as a confession of error. See In re Marriage of Diezsi, 201 Ariz. 524, 525, ¶ 2, 38 P.3d 1189, 1190 (App. 2002). We decline to do so on this record. 3 CONCLUSION ¶5 For the reasons discussed above, we judgment of the family court. /s/ PATRICK IRVINE, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ LAWRENCE F. WINTHROP, Presiding Judge /s/ PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Judge 4 affirm the

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.