MORGAN/BROHNER v CARILLON INVESTMENTS; SIMPSON

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc ALEXA J. MORGAN; NANCY B. BROHNER, ) ) ) Plaintiffs-Appellants, ) Cross-Appellees, ) ) v. ) ) CARILLON INVESTMENTS, INC.; ) MICHAEL SIMPSON and his wife ) JANE DOE SIMPSON, ) ) Defendants-Appellees, ) Cross-Appellants. ) __________________________________) Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-04-0222-PR Court of Appeals Division One No. 1 CA-CV 03-0232 Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV02-012785 O P I N I O N Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County The Honorable Mark R. Santana, Judge REVERSED AND REMANDED ________________________________________________________________ Opinion of the Court of Appeals, Division One 207 Ariz. 547, 88 P.3d 1159 (App. 2004) AFFIRMED ________________________________________________________________ RENAUD COOK DRURY MESAROS, PA by Michael Salcido Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants, Cross-Apellees Phoenix HOLLOWAY ODEGARD FORREST KELLY & KASPAREK, P.C. Phoenix by Peter C. Kelly, II and Matthew M. Nicely Attorneys for Defendants-Appellees, Cross-Appellants ________________________________________________________________ P E R C U R I A M ¶1 court This of court appeals granted erred in review not to determine affirming the whether trial the court s dismissal of Alexa J. Morgan s application to set aside an arbitration award, which she filed fourteen months after the entry of the arbitration award, as untimely. We conclude that there was no error. ¶2 The relevant facts of this case are set forth in the court of appeals opinion, and we adopt them here by reference. See Morgan v. Carillon Invs., Inc., 207 Ariz. 547, 548, ¶¶ 1-5, 88 P.3d 1159, 1160 (App. 2004). ¶3 In its petition for review, Carillon Investments, Inc., claims that Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) § 12-1513 (2003) establishes the appropriate deadline for filing a motion to set aside an arbitration award. It further argues that Hatch v. Double Circle Ranch, 22 Ariz. App. 124, 524 P.2d 958 (1974), which imposed A.R.S. § 12-1513 s ninety-day limitation on a motion to vacate an arbitration award filed pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-1512, is dispositive in this case. The court of appeals, however, disagreed with the Hatch opinion and concluded that neither A.R.S. § 12-1513 nor A.R.S. § 12-1512 (2003) provided a statute of limitations arbitration award. 1164. for filing a motion to set aside an Morgan, 207 Ariz. at 552, ¶ 23, 88 P.3d at Thus a conflict now exists between extant opinions of the court of appeals. We therefore issue this opinion to clarify this important area of the law. - 2 - ¶4 We conclude that the court of appeals opinion in this case is the better reasoned opinion and adopt its reasoning as our own. A party seeking to set aside an arbitration award may file its motion pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-1512, which does not impose a statute of limitations. ability to preclude the A prevailing party has the spectre of an unlimited limitations period for filing a motion to vacate an arbitration award by filing a motion to confirm the award pursuant to A.R.S. § 121511 (2003), thereby triggering which to file an opposition. motion was timely. the twenty-day limitation in In light of this ruling, Morgan s We therefore affirm the opinion of the court of appeals and remand this case so that the trial court may properly consider Morgan s motion. __________________________________ Charles E. Jones, Chief Justice __________________________________ Ruth V. McGregor, Vice Chief Justice __________________________________ Rebecca White Berch, Justice __________________________________ Michael D. Ryan, Justice __________________________________ Andrew D. Hurwitz, Justice - 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.