SEILER v. PINKERTON

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 TRUMAN SEILER, IV, ) ) Plaintiff/Appellee, ) ) v. ) ) NATALIE PINKERTON, ) ) Defendant/Appellant. ) ) __________________________________) DIVISION ONE FILED: 3/26/2013 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: mjt No. 1 CA-CV 12-0412 DEPARTMENT C MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 28, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CV2012-051423 The Honorable John R. Doody, Judge AFFIRMED Truman J. Seiler IV Plaintiff/Appellee In Propria Persona Phoenix Natalie Pinkerton Defendant/Appellant In Propria Persona Phoenix J O H N S E N, Judge ¶1 Natalie Pinkerton appeals the superior court s order continuing an Injunction Against Harassment issued in favor of Truman Seiler, IV. We affirm the superior court s order. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 Seiler, Pinkerton s former son-in-law, petitioned the court for an Injunction Against Harassment directed at Pinkerton in February 2012. 1 Seiler alleged in his petition that Pinkerton sent unwanted and annoying emails and texts to him, stalked him at his home, school and place of work, threatened to take his son away, and became violent and combative with him over the phone. Seiler asserted in his petition that he felt seriously alarmed, annoyed, harassed, stalked and controlled, and that he had repeatedly [Pinkerton] and requested her that controling there [sic] be no contact behaviors. The from court granted the injunction the same day Seiler filed his petition and it was served on Pinkerton on April 6, 2012. prohibited against Pinkerton Seiler, from committing contacting Seiler any except act The injunction of harassment through counsel or appropriate legal channels, and going near Seiler s residence or school. ¶3 Pinkerton accusations were sought false. a Based hearing, upon arguing evidence offered Seiler s at the hearing, the court found Seiler had met his burden of proof and that sufficient evidence existed to continue the injunction, and ordered it to remain in effect. 1 The record indicates that Seiler filed an original petition for Injunction Against Harassment and then two amended petitions. We consider only the second amended petition. 2 ¶4 Pinkerton timely appealed the court s order. jurisdiction pursuant to sections 12-120.21(A)(1) Arizona (West Revised 2013) and Statutes We have ( A.R.S. ) -2101(A)(5)(b) (West 2013). 2 DISCUSSION A. Continuance of the Injunction. ¶5 We review a superior court s decision to grant or deny an injunction for an abuse of discretion. LaFaro v. Cahill, 203 Ariz. 482, 485, ¶ 10, 56 P.3d 56, 59 (App. 2002). A court abuses its discretion when it commits an error of law in the process of record, viewed trial reaching court s in a the discretionary light decision, support the decision. is most devoid conclusion favorable of to or when the upholding the competent evidence to Mahar v. Acuna, 230 Ariz. 530, ___, ¶ 14, 287 P.3d 824, 828 (App. 2012) (quotation omitted). ¶6 Pinkerton argues the superior court erred in continuing the injunction because Seiler did not present any documented proof of many of the instances of alleged harassment described in the petition. there are no police Pinkerton specifically notes that reports or other documentation of the multiple accusations on this Injunction, and that [w]ith such 2 Absent material revisions after the relevant date, we cite a statute s current version. 3 serious charges and accusations on this injunction there should be proof presented and the burden was on the Plaintiff. ¶7 Pinkerton points to nothing in the record, however, to show how the court erred in continuing the injunction. minute entry the court issued after the hearing, the In the court stated that based on testimony from Seiler and Pinkerton, it found that Seiler had presented sufficient evidence to continue the injunction. Moreover, a transcript of the hearing was not included in the record on appeal. It is the appellant s burden to ensure that the record on appeal contains all transcripts or other documents necessary for us to consider the issues raised. And, in the absence of a transcript, we presume the evidence and arguments presented at the hearing support the trial court s ruling. Blair v. Burgener, 226 Ariz. 213, 217, ¶ 9, 245 P.3d 898, 902 (App. 2010) (quotation omitted). Because the record contains no evidence to support Pinkerton s assertion that the superior court s decision is based on insufficient evidence, we cannot hold that the court abused its discretion in continuing the injunction. B. Seiler s Request. ¶8 court Seiler argues in his answering brief that the superior should have expanded the injunction to limit [Pinkerton] s ability to access, own and possess firearms and ammunition and limit her unsupervised visits and interactions 4 with Seiler s son. We may not consider these arguments, however, because Seiler did not file a cross-appeal from the superior court s order. Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 13(b)(3) allows an appellate court to direct that the judgment be modified to enlarge the rights of the appellee or to lessen the rights of the appellant only if the appellee has cross-appealed seeking such relief. This rule applies to Seiler s contention that the court should have broadened the injunction. See A M Leasing Ltd. v. Baker, 163 Ariz. 194, 195- 96, 786 P.2d 1045, 1046-47 (App. 1989) (argument on appeal that amount of compensation awarded by superior court should be increased may not be considered in absence of a cross-appeal). CONCLUSION ¶9 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the superior court s continuance of the injunction. _______________/s/_______________ DIANE M. JOHNSEN, Judge CONCURRING: _______________/s/_________________ SAMUEL A. THUMMA, Presiding Judge ______________/s/__________________ MICHAEL J. BROWN, Judge 5

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.