SHUFELT v. CRISWELL, CLARK, FRAIJO, FRAZIER, LONG, et al.

 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 TWO JOHN H. SHUFELT, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. NANCY CRISWELL, PAT CLARK, LAURA FRAIJO, STEVE FRAZIER, JAYNE LONG, and VIRGINIA MACGILLIVRAY, Defendants/Appellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FILED BY CLERK JUL 26 2012 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO 2 CA-CV 2012-0024 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 28, Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PINAL COUNTY Cause No. CV201003839 Honorable Bradley M. Soos, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED John H. Shufelt Moyes Sellers & Hendricks By Steve L. Wene H O W A R D, Chief Judge. Maricopa In Propria Persona Phoenix Attorneys for Defendants/Appellees Appellant John Shufelt appeals from the trial court s grant of summary ¶1 judgment against him1 and in favor of appellees Nancy Criswell, Pat Clark, Laura Fraijo, Steve Frazier, Jayne Long, and Virginia MacGillivray. Because Shufelt has waived his arguments, we affirm. Factual and Procedural Background ¶2 Shufelt, along with others, sued appellees in the Maricopa/Stanfield Justice Court, but the case ultimately was transferred to Pinal County Superior Court. Shufelt filed an amended complaint alleging he and other plaintiffs, rather than appellees, had been elected to the board of directors of Maricopa Mountain Water Company. He requested the trial court grant declaratory judgment finding plaintiffs to be the directors and award damages for appellees intentional interference with a business relationship as well as fees and costs. Appellees filed a motion for summary judgment and Shufelt responded. Following oral argument, the court granted appellees motion, awarded them attorney fees, and entered a final judgment. This appeal followed. Discussion Shufelt appears to contend the trial court erred by considering un-related ¶3 issues and permitting appellees to present such arguments. But Shufelt has failed to comply with our rules. Those rules require that his opening brief contain: a table of 1 Only Shufelt signed the notice of appeal, although another plaintiff, Alice Shoaf, filed a notice of appearance, opening brief, and reply brief. Shufelt is not an attorney and, therefore, could not represent Shoaf in the notice of appeal. State v. 1810 E. Second Ave., 193 Ariz. 1, 2 n.1, 969 P.2d 166, 167 n.1 (App. 1997). Because Shoaf has not filed a valid notice of appeal, we do not have jurisdiction over any appeal by her. See id. And, because Shoaf is not an attorney, she cannot represent Shufelt on appeal in the briefs she has filed. See id. Thus, we do not consider Shoaf s appellate briefs. 2 contents, a table of citations, a statement of the case, a statement of facts with citations to the record, a statement of issues presented for review, and a conclusion. Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a)(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (7). Furthermore, his argument does not identify clearly the issues presented nor does it include citations to the authorities, statutes and parts of the record relied on. Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a)(6). Thus, he has waived his argument on appeal. See Polanco v. Indus. Comm n, 214 Ariz. 489, n.2, 154 P.3d 391, 393-94 n.2 (App. 2007) (argument waived when appellant fails to develop and support it); see also In re Marriage of Williams, 219 Ariz. 546, ¶ 13, 200 P.3d 1043, 1046 (App. 2008) (unrepresented parties held to same standards as attorneys); FIA Card Servs., N.A. v. Levy, 219 Ariz. 523, 524 & n.1, 200 P.3d 1020, 1021 & n.1 (App. 2008) (waiving argument for failure to develop by unrepresented party). Attorney Fees ¶4 Appellees request costs and attorney fees on appeal as the successful party to an action arising out of a contract, pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-341 and 12-341.01(A).2 Costs incurred on appeal may be recovered pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-342 rather than § 12341. Motzer v. Escalante, 228 Ariz. 295, ¶ 17, 265 P.3d 1094, 1097 (App. 2011). We grant appellees their request for costs and reasonable attorney fees upon compliance with Rule 21, Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 2 Appellees also request attorney fees pursuant to § 12-341.01(C) for a claim which constitutes harassment, is groundless and is not made in good faith. 1999 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 140, § 1. The legislature recently has removed § 13-341.01(C) and enacted a new statute permitting attorney fees in an unjustified action. 2012 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 305, §§ 1, 2. However, because we award attorney fees under § 13-341.01(A), we need not consider this basis for awarding fees. 3 Conclusion ¶5 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court s grant of summary judgment in favor of appellees. /s/ Joseph W. Howard JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Peter J. Eckerstrom PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Presiding Judge /s/ J. William Brammer, Jr. J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., Judge 4

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.