PULLEY v. SETERUS/SAFEGUARD

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 DIVISION ONE FILED: 3/26/2013 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: mjt IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE LARRY PULLEY, ) ) Plaintiff/Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) SETERUS, INC., a Delaware ) corporation dba IBM BUSINESS ) LENDER PROCESS SERVICES, ) ) Defendant/Appellee. ) __________________________________) 1 CA-CV 11-0773 DEPARTMENT E MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 28, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure) Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County Cause No. P1300CV201101426 The Honorable Warren R. Darrow, Judge Pro Tempore APPEAL DISMISSED Larry Pulley, Plaintiff/Appellant In Propria Persona Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP by Bradford E. Klein Attorneys for Defendant/Appellee Ehrenberg, AZ Newport Beach, CA P O R T L E Y, Judge ¶1 Larry Pulley ( Pulley ) and co-plaintiff Kay Deliman ( Deliman ) filed a forcible detainer action lawsuit to recover their property. After the property was voluntarily returned to them, the trial court dismissed the action without prejudice and awarded them costs. reasons that Pulley now appeals the judgment. follow, we dismiss his appeal for For the lack of jurisdiction. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Deliman owned a home in Prescott, Arizona, subject to a loan and secured by a deed of trust. After she avoided a trustee s sale by securing a loan modification, she transferred a one-tenth of one percent interest in the property to Pulley by quitclaim deed. ¶3 the The house was damaged by fire in May 2011. damage, Deliman temporarily vacated her Because of home, insurance company boarded it up and secured it. 1 and her While boarded up, the lender, Seterus, Inc., directed Safeguard Properties, LLC 2 ( Safeguard ) to inspect the property. Deliman or abandoned, Pulley, Safeguard and changed Deliman and the determined locks to Without contacting the secure house the had property been for Seterus. ¶4 action in Yavapai Pulley Superior then Court. filed a After forcible service, detainer Safeguard agreed to return possession of the house to Deliman and Pulley 1 After her insurance company completed its investigation, it released the property to Deliman and Pulley, and they placed their own locks on the home and two adjacent sheds. 2 Safeguard is not a party on appeal. 2 and pay the related costs of $254. Seterus also agreed to restore possession and pay related costs of $53. The court entered an order awarding the stipulated costs to Deliman and Pulley and dismissed their action without prejudice. Pulley then filed this appeal. DISCUSSION ¶5 We first note that the forcible detainer action was dismissed without prejudice. Although neither party raises the issue of our jurisdiction, we have an independent duty to review our jurisdiction in order to determine whether we can address the issues or whether we have to dismiss the appeal. Kim v. Mansoori, 214 Ariz. 457, 459, ¶ 5, 153 P.3d 1086, 1088 (App. 2007) (citing Davis v. Cessna Aircraft Corp., 168 Ariz. 301, 304, 812 P.2d 1119, 1122 (App. 1991)). Generally, appellate court jurisdiction is limited to final judgments which dispose of all claims and all parties. Musa v. Adrian, 130 Ariz. 311, 312, see 636 12-2101(A) P.2d 89, (West 90 2013) (1981); (limiting also Ariz. appellate Rev. Stat. jurisdiction to § a final judgment entered in an action . . . in superior court ). ¶6 this There are two reasons we do not have jurisdiction over appeal. awarded costs. First, Pulley recovered the property and was See Douglas v. Governing Bd. of Window Rock Consol. Sch. Dist. No. 8, 221 Ariz. 104, 108, ¶ 8, 210 P.3d 1275, 1279 (App. 2009) ( [W]hen a court enters a judgment in 3 favor of a party, that party is not aggrieved and thus has no standing to appeal. ). Second, and more importantly, forcible detainer action was dismissed without prejudice. result, such an order cannot be appealed. the As a See McMurray v. Dream Catcher USA, Inc., 220 Ariz. 71, 74, ¶ 4, 202 P.3d 536, 539 (App. 2009) ( Because it is not a final judgment, [a] dismissal without prejudice is not appealable and for that reason alone [an] appeal of [such an] order should be dismissed. ) (internal quotation marks omitted) (alterations in original). Accordingly, we do not have jurisdiction to review a dismissal without prejudice. 3 CONCLUSION ¶7 Based on the foregoing, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. /s/ _____________________________ MAURICE PORTLEY, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ___________________________________ MARGARET H. DOWNIE, Presiding Judge /s/ ___________________________________ PHILIP HALL, Judge 3 Because we do not have jurisdiction, we do not address the claims that Pulley raises on appeal but did not raise with the trial court. 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.