Brown v. Fox

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. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE CYNTHIA CATHERINE BROWN, ) ) Plaintiff/Appellee, ) ) v. ) ) ADA FOX, ) ) Defendant/Appellant. ) __________________________________) DIVISION ONE FILED: 06/17/10 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: JT 1 CA-CV 09-0698 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 28, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CV2009-024869 The Honorable Kirby Kongable, Commissioner AFFIRMED Bonnie Yarbrough PLC by Bonnie Yarbrough Attorney for Defendant/Appellant Mesa Cynthia Catherine Brown, Plaintiff/Appellee In Propria Persona Phoenix P O R T L E Y, Judge ¶1 Ada Fox appeals from an injunction against harassment entered in favor of Cynthia Brown. we affirm the injunction. For the following reasons, FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 Brown filed an amended petition against harassment on September 24, 2009. for an injunction She alleged that Fox, her husband s ex-wife, committed a series of acts . . . which ha[d] seriously alarmed, annoyed, and harassed [her], with no legitimate purpose. ¶3 During the contested hearing, the trial court admitted into evidence a series of six exhibits over Fox s objection. Fox argued that it was improper to admit the exhibits because Brown had failed to disclose them prior to the hearing. ¶4 After the hearing, the court granted the injunction, and ordered that Fox have no contact with Brown except through attorneys, legal process, and court hearings; and that Fox not contact Brown s employer. pursuant to Arizona Fox appeals, and we have jurisdiction Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) sections 12- 2101(B) and (F)(2) (2003), and Arizona Rule of Protective Order Procedure 9(A)(2). DISCUSSION ¶5 Fox contends on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting Brown s six exhibits during the preissuance Procedure hearing. 26.1(a)(9) She argues requires that Brown exhibits prior to the hearing. Arizona to have Rule of disclosed Civil the As noted during the hearing, however, Arizona Rule of Protective Order Procedure 5(B) states 2 that [t]he disclosure requirements set forth in Rule 26.1 . . . do not apply to hearings on . . . Injunctions Against Harassment . . . unless otherwise specifically ordered by the court. Because the trial court did not specifically direct the parties to comply with the Rule 26.1 disclosure requirements, the court did not err in admitting the exhibits over Fox s objection. ¶6 Brown requests an award of costs on appeal. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341 (2003), we grant her request for costs to be determined upon her compliance with Rule 21. CONCLUSION ¶7 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the injunction against harassment. /s/ _____________________________ MAURICE PORTLEY, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ________________________________ JOHN C. GEMMILL, Presiding Judge /s/ ________________________________ PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Judge 3

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.