TELLES v. BUTTERY

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. FILED BY CLERK SEP 30 2009 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO MERCEDES C. TELLES, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. JOSEPHINE BUTTERY, Defendant/Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CV 2009-0019 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 28, Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PINAL COUNTY Cause No. CV-200801303 Honorable Robert Carter Olson, Judge AFFIRMED Mercedes Telles Cooper & Rueter, L.L.P. By Stephen R. Cooper E C K E R S T R O M, Presiding Judge. Mammoth In Propria Persona Casa Grande Attorneys for Defendant/Appellee ¶1 Mercedes Telles, appearing before this court in propria persona, appeals from the trial court s dismissal of her complaint against Josephine Buttery in a matter involving a transfer of real property. In her opening brief, which lacks any citations to the law or the record on appeal, Telles argues the court erred in dismissing [her] case . . . due to the fact that an answer was not filed in a timely manner. Yet the court did not, in fact, dismiss the case for that reason. ¶2 In its judgment, the trial court noted that Telles is aggrieved and was harmed in this [real estate] transaction. The court concluded, however, that Telles had improperly asserted her claim against Buttery rather than the seller of the property and/or the Title company. The court thus dismissed Telles s claim on this ground. ¶3 Rule 13(a)(6), Ariz. R. Civ. App. P., requires that arguments in opening briefs contain the contentions of the appellant with respect to the issues presented, and the reasons therefor, with citations to the authorities, statutes and parts of the record relied on. Parties who choose to represent themselves are entitled to no more consideration than if they had been represented by counsel and are held to the same standards as attorneys with respect to familiarity with required procedures and . . . notice of statutes and local rules. In re Marriage of Williams, 219 Ariz. 546, ¶ 13, 200 P.3d 1043, 1046 (App. 2008), quoting Smith v. Rabb, 95 Ariz. 49, 53, 386 P.2d 649, 652 (1963) (alteration in Williams). A party s failure to develop an argument in an opening brief will result in waiver of the claim. State v. 2 Carver, 160 Ariz. 167, 175, 771 P.2d 1382, 1390 (1989); Lohmeier v. Hammer, 214 Ariz. 57, n.5, 148 P.3d 101, 108 n.5 (App. 2006). ¶4 Because Telles has presented no issue for review on appeal, we affirm the trial court s judgment dismissing Telles s complaint. We grant Buttery s request for costs on appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341, provided she complies with Rule 21, Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. ____________________________________ PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: ____________________________________ J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., Judge ____________________________________ PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Judge 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.