DONALD J. STUTLER v. SONYA RENEE BOOK
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO DONALD JAMES STUTLER, Petitioner/Appellant, v. SONYA RENEE BOOK, Respondent/Appellee. No. 2 CA-CV 2016-0167-FC Filed August 25, 2017 THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 28(a)(1), (f). Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. SP20140152 The Honorable James E. Marner, Judge APPEAL DISMISSED COUNSEL Donald Stutler, Tucson In Propria Persona Cayce & Associates, Tucson By Cheryl C. Cayce Counsel for Respondent/Appellee STUTLER v. BOOK Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Chief Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Vásquez and Judge Kelly1 concurred. E C K E R S T R O M, Chief Judge: ¶1 Donald Stutler (Father) appeals from the trial court’s order allowing Sonya Book (Mother) to relocate with their minor child, D.J. Because we lack jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal. ¶2 Although neither party has raised the issue of jurisdiction, “[t]his court has an independent duty to examine whether we have jurisdiction over matters on appeal.” Camasura v. Camasura, 238 Ariz. 179, ¶ 5, 358 P.3d 600, 602 (App. 2015). On May 31, 2016, Father filed a request to enforce the court’s prior order regarding parenting time and a separate request to prohibit Mother’s relocation with their minor child. On June 28, the trial court entered an under-advisement ruling permitting Mother to relocate to Missouri. As to Father’s motion to enforce parenting time, the court noted that “[t]he current parenting plan . . . is no longer an option,” put temporary orders for parenting time in place, and ordered the parties to attend mediation and “attempt to reach an agreed-upon parenting time plan.” Father then filed a “Rule 82, 83, 84 Omnibus Motion for a New Trial, Findings of Fact and Reconsideration,” which the trial court treated as a motion for new trial and denied. Father timely filed a notice of appeal. ¶3 An appeal generally will lie only from a final judgment. Camasura, 238 Ariz. 179, ¶ 6, 358 P.3d at 602. The trial court’s order regarding parenting time expressly stated that it was “temporary” and required the parties to attempt to create a permanent parenting time plan. Because there was no final order regarding parenting time, the judgment was not final as to all claims against all parties. Id. ¶ 7 1The Hon. Virginia C. Kelly, a retired judge of this court, is called back to active duty to serve on this case pursuant to orders of this court and our supreme court. 2 STUTLER v. BOOK Decision of the Court (judgment that did not resolve parenting time, among other issues, was not final). Nor did the order contain a determination, pursuant to Rule 78(B), Ariz. R. Fam. Law P., that there was “no just reason for delay” or “an express direction for the entry of judgment.” Accordingly, there is no final, appealable judgment and we lack jurisdiction. We dismiss the appeal. 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.
