Best v. Miranda
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 GREGORY BEST, a single man, ) ) Plaintiff/Appellant, ) ) ) v. ) JOHN MIRANDA and DINA VARGAS ) MIRANDA, husband and wife, ) ) Defendants/Appellees. ) ) No. DIVISION ONE FILED: 03/20/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: DLL 1 CA-CV 11-0178 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 28, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CV2005-092817 The Honorable John R. Ditsworth, Judge AFFIRMED Gregory Best Plaintiff/Appellant in propria persona Phoenix Law Offices of James B. Rolle Phoenix by James B. Rolle, III Attorneys for Defendants/Appellees ________________________________________________________________ T I M M E R, Judge ¶1 Gregory Best appeals from summary judgment entered in favor of Jose and Dina Vargas Miranda (the Mirandas ). Best contends the court erred by interpreting an option contract for the purchase of real property as requiring him to pay the full purchase price to exercise the option. ¶2 The pertinent terms of the option contract are identical to the option contract entered in between Best and Arturo Miranda, Jose s brother, which was the subject of this court s recent decision in Best v. Miranda, 1 CA-CV 10-0886, 2012 WL 868774 (Ariz. App. Mar. 15, 2012). The arguments asserted by Best in this appeal are the same as those raised and resolved in Best. Thus, Best is collaterally estopped from re- litigating these arguments in this appeal as he had a full and fair opportunity to litigate them through appeal in the case against Arturo Miranda. Raimey v. Ditsworth, 227 Ariz. 552, 557, ¶ 12, 261 P.3d 436, 441 (App. 2011) (holding homeowners association collaterally estopped from enforcing declarations against homeowners because declarations adjudicated invalid in prior suit against other homeowners); Di Orio v. City of Scottsdale, 2 Ariz. App. 329, 332, 408 P.2d 849, 852 (1965) ( It is generally accepted that a party who has had one fair and full opportunity to prove a claim in a court of competent jurisdiction and has failed to do so, should not be permitted to go to trial on the merits of that claim a second time. ). Even assuming collateral estoppel principles do not apply, we reject Best s arguments for the reasons set forth in Best, 1 CA-CV 100886, 2012 WL 868774, at *2-3, ¶¶ 8-14. 2 ¶3 on We deny Best s request for an award of attorneys fees appeal himself. because he did not prevail, and he represented We award the Mirandas their costs upon compliance with Rule 21, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure. § 12-341 (2003). CONCLUSION ¶4 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm. /s/ Ann A. Scott Timmer, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Maurice Portley, Presiding Judge /s/ Andrew W. Gould, Judge 3 See A.R.S.
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.
