Wisniewski v. Langdon

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 RUTHANNE WISNIEWSKI, an ) individual and as Guardian of ) REGINA WISNIEWSKI, a minor child, ) ) Plaintiff/Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) CAROLYN LANGDON, an individual, ) ) Defendant/Appellee. ) __________________________________) DIVISION ONE FILED: 01/26/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: DLL 1 CA-CV 11-0108 DEPARTMENT D MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 28, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CV2008-007137 The Honorable Jeanne M. Garcia, Judge AFFIRMED Leavell & Rivera, P.L.C. by Thomas H. Leavell Attorneys for Plaintiff/Appellant Phoenix Best Law Firm by Cynthia L. Best Attorneys for Defendant/Appellee Scottsdale P O R T L E Y, Judge ¶1 Ruthanne Wisniewski ( Wisniewski ) appeals rulings in favor of Carolyn Langdon ( Langdon ). various She argues that the answer trial and court erred counterclaims by and by sanctions or punitive damages. considering not Langdon s ordering Langdon amended to pay For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Wisniewski and Langdon approximately seven years. were domestic partners for They purchased a house as tenants in common, and Wisniewski adopted a daughter who lived with them until the relationship ended in November 2007. Wisniewski moved out, but returned to their home and removed some furniture and other property. She subsequently filed a lawsuit alleging conversion because she believed that she was entitled to other property they had jointly acquired that remained in Langdon s possession. ¶3 The parties were unable to settle their dispute and the case proceeded to a bench trial. At the outset of the trial, amended Wisniewski moved to strike the answer. She argued that the amended answer, which included counterclaims, had never been filed or properly served pursuant to Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). 1 Langdon, however, argued that the amended answer was attached to the motion to amend, and that the 1 If shall order Ariz. a motion for leave to amend is granted, the moving party file and serve the amended pleading within ten days of the granting the motion, unless the court otherwise orders. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 2 Rule 15(a) 2 violation had not been raised prior to trial. The court found that Wisniewski had known about the counterclaims in the amended answer since August 2009 and excused actual service pursuant Rule 1. 3 ¶4 Wisniewski also argued that six of Langdon s exhibits were not timely disclosed and should be precluded from being used at trial. 4 Langdon asserted that Wisniewski had a list of all the exhibits in May 2009, had access to most of them, and was provided physical copies of documents several weeks prior to trial. The court excluded four exhibits that did not appear in Langdon s disclosure statement or were not disclosed until the week before the trial. The court did not, however, impose sanctions for the Rule 26.1 violations. ¶5 At the conclusion of the trial, the court ordered Langdon to return certain items to Wisniewski and to reimburse her for half of the value of the parties jointly purchased household property. The court, despite Wisniewski s claim, refused to award her punitive damages because the court did not 2 Unless stated otherwise, a Rule referenced in this decision is an Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure. 3 The court permitted Wisniewski to orally respond to each allegation in the amended answer. 4 Wisniewski also objected to an exhibit consisting of sixteen settlement letters from Langdon. See Ariz. R. Evid. 408. The court, however, allowed the exhibit to be only used for the limited issue of attorneys fees. Wisniewski stipulated to admissibility of three exhibits and Langdon withdrew two challenged exhibits. 3 find that Langdon had engaged in any egregious behavior or had an evil mind. This appeal followed. DISCUSSION A. Sanctions ¶6 Wisniewski argues that the trial court erred when it refused to award her attorneys fees and costs to compel Langdon to comply with Rule 26.1. 5 We review a denial of sanctions for discovery violations for an abuse of discretion. Jimenez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 206 Ariz. 424, 426, ¶ 5, 79 P.3d 673, 675 (App. 2003) (citation omitted). ¶7 Wisniewski filed her motion to compel discovery while the parties were discussing settlement. trial court found that postponing After briefing, the disclosure was justified because of the settlement negotiations but ordered Langdon to comply with a new disclosure deadline. 5 The court, however, did Wisniewski also argues that the court erred by not imposing sanctions on Langdon for untimely disclosing certain trial exhibits. We decline to address the argument because the request was not presented to the trial court. Brown Wholesale Elec. Co. v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 135 Ariz. 154, 158, 659 P.2d 1299, 1303 (App. 1982) (citation omitted) ( Matters not presented to the trial court cannot for the first time be raised on appeal. ). We note, however, that even if the request had been made, we find no error. The court properly assessed whether the disclosure of each challenged document prejudiced Wisniewski and excluded those exhibits that were not identified in Langdon s initial disclosure statement, made available for review, or provided. 4 not find a disclosure violation. Consequently, the court did not err by denying the request for sanctions. B. Amended Answer ¶8 Wisniewski next argues that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the amended answer and counterclaims to be a part of the trial even though the pleading had not been filed or served after the motion to amend was granted. We review the issue de novo because whether Rule 1 permits a court to excuse strict interpretation compliance of rules with [which] Rule poses 15(a) involves questions of an law. McEvoy v. Aerotek, Inc., 201 Ariz. 300, 304, ¶ 17, 34 P.3d 979, 983 (App. 2001) (citation omitted). If the court properly construed Rule 1, we will affirm its ruling unless we find an abuse of discretion. Lenze v. Synthes, Ltd., 160 Ariz. 302, 305, 772 P.2d 1155, 1158 (App. 1989) (citation omitted) ( [T]he trial court's sanctions discretionary without exercise compromising due of power process] [to is impose entitled to deference on appeal. ); see also Winterrowd v. Am. Gen. Annuity Ins. Co., 556 F.3d 815, 826 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted) (district court did not abuse its discretion by summarily denying sanctions request). ¶9 the The Rules of Civil Procedure are designed to secure just, action. speedy, and inexpensive determination Ariz. R. Civ. P. 1; Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 5 of every A liberal construction is appropriate to effectuate the purpose of the rules, Union Interchange, Inc. v. Benton, 100 Ariz. 33, 36, 410 P.2d 477, 479 (1966) (citations omitted), particularly in the context of amended pleadings. Green Reservoir Flood Control Dist. v. Willmoth, 15 Ariz. App. 406, 409, 489 P.2d 69, 72 (1971) ( [A]mendments will be liberally granted unless the adverse party is prejudiced. ). ¶10 Rule 15(a)(2) requires a party to file and serve the amended pleading motion, unless within the ten court days of otherwise the order orders. granting Here, the although Langdon did not separately file or serve the amended answer, the court found that Wisniewski had received it with the motion to amend, and never raised the defective service issue prior to trial. Moreover, the court allowed Wisniewski to respond to each allegation in open court, and she did not demonstrate any resulting prejudice. As a result, the court, knowing that Wisniewski had seen the answer and counterclaims, allowed them to ensure that any resolved at trial. and all issues between the parties were See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 181 (1962) (It is contrary to the spirit of the [Rules] for decisions on the merits to be avoided on the basis of such mere technicalities. ); Edwards v. Young, 107 Ariz. 283, 284, 486 P.2d 181, weight to 182 the (1971) (citations federal omitted) interpretations 6 ( [W]e of the give great rules. ). Consequently, the court did not abuse its discretion by excusing strict compliance with Rule 15(a)(2). C. Punitive Damages ¶11 Finally, Wisniewski challenges the court s failure to grant her request for punitive damages. We review a denial of punitive damages for an abuse of discretion. See Maxwell v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 143 Ariz. 205, 218, 693 P.2d 348, 361 (App. 1984). ¶12 Punitive damages are awarded, not to compensate the injured party, but rather to punish the defendant for conduct shown to Deinhard, be 127 outrageous, Ariz. willful 358, 359, and 621 malicious, P.2d 45, Huggins 46 (App. v. 1980) (citations omitted), and to deter similar conduct by others. Linthicum v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co., 150 Ariz. 326, 330, 723 P.2d 675, 679 (1986). In fact, they can be awarded only if the wrongdoer possessed an evil mind, the requisite mental state. Linthicum, 150 Ariz. at 330-31, 723 P.2d at 679-80; see also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 908 (1979). ¶13 In Linthicum, our supreme court affirmed the reversal of a punitive damages award against a health insurance company that denied coverage to its insured without adequately investigating the claim or disclosing the medical basis for the denial. insurance 150 Ariz. company at may 332, 723 have acted 7 P.2d in at bad 681. Although faith, there the was insufficient evidence of an evil mind to sustain the award. Id. Similarly, here, the trial court determined that Wisniewski did not prove that Langdon acted outrageously or with an evil mind; it was merely the dissolution of a domestic partnership. See Federoff v. Pioneer Title & Trust Co. of Ariz., 166 Ariz. 383, 388, 803 P.2d 104, 109 (1990) (citation omitted) (deferring to a trial court s factual findings unless they are erroneous or unsupported by any credible evidence ). court did not abuse its discretion by not clearly Thus, the imposing punitive damages. ¶14 appeal. Wisniewski also requests attorneys fees and costs on Because she did not prevail, we deny the request. CONCLUSION ¶15 Based on the foregoing, we affirm the trial court s rulings and judgment. We also award Langdon her appellate costs upon compliance with Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 21. /s/ _____________________________ MAURICE PORTLEY, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ________________________________ JON W. THOMPSON, Presiding Judge /s/ ________________________________ JOHN C. GEMMILL, Judge 8

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.