AUSSIE v. LEAFTY

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 AUSSIE SONORAN CAPITAL, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, fna Dos Mates, LLC, ) ) ) ) Plaintiff/Appellee, ) ) v. ) ) ANNA LEAFTY, an unmarried woman, ) ) ) Defendant/Appellant. ) No. DIVISION ONE FILED: 11/15/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: sls 1 CA-CV 11-0459 DEPARTMENT A Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2011-008142 DECISION ORDER The court has reviewed the record pursuant to its duty to determine whether it has jurisdiction over this appeal. See Sorensen v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Ariz., 191 Ariz. 464, 465, 957 P.2d 1007, 1008 (App. 1997). Appellant filed a notice of appeal on June 16, 2011, from a signed filed judgment on June of forcible 10, 2011, entry while attorney s fees was pending. and detainer appellee s ( Judgment ) application for The Judgment provided that the court would award reasonable attorney s fees in an amount to be determined. Appellee filed an application for attorney s fees on June 16, 2011. On June 22, 2011, the superior court entered 1 CA-CV 11-0459 Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2011-008142 a signed order awarding appellee all of its requested attorney s fees. Appellant did not file a new or amended notice of appeal after entry of the June 22 order. The Judgment was not a final appealable judgment because the court did not resolve the attorney s fees issue and the ruling does not contain a determination of finality pursuant to Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). 127 Ariz. 216, 217-19, 619 P.2d See Pulaski v. Perkins, 488, 489-91 (App. 1980). Therefore, the notice of appeal was premature. A premature notice of appeal is effective only if no decision of the court could change and the only remaining task is merely ministerial. Craig v. Craig, 227 Ariz. 105, 107, ¶ 13, 253 P.3d 624, 626 (2011) (citation omitted). In all other cases, a notice of appeal filed in the absence of a final judgment . . . is ineffective and a nullity. omitted). Id. (citation Determining the amount of attorney s fees to award is not a ministerial task. Fields v. Oates, _ Ariz _, _, ¶ 13, 286 P.3d 160, 164 (App. 2012) (holding resolution of an application 2 1 CA-CV 11-0459 Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2011-008142 for attorneys fees is a discretionary determination, not a merely ministerial act. ). Because the superior court had not resolved the attorney s fees issue when the notice of appeal was filed, the notice of appeal is a nullity. See Craig, 227 Ariz. at 107, ¶ 13, 253 P.3d at 626; Santee v. Mesa Airlines, Inc., 229 Ariz. 88, 89, ¶ 7, 270 P.3d 915, 916 (App. 2012) (a notice of appeal filed while a Rule 68(g) motion is pending is a nullity). IT IS ORDERED dismissing this appeal jurisdiction. /s/ Ann A. Scott Timmer Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Margaret H. Downie, Judge /s/ Patricia K. Norris, Judge 3 Therefore, for lack of

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.