GAYLE HANSON v. CARI ARNDT

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO GAYLE HANSON, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CARI ARNDT, Defendant/Appellee. No. 2 CA-CV 2017-0005 Filed July 10, 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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. C20161253 The Honorable Gus Aragón, Judge AFFIRMED Gayle Hanson, Green Valley In Propria Persona Cari Arndt, Marana In Propria Persona HANSON v. ARNDT 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 Plaintiff Gayle Hanson appeals from the trial court’s judgment in favor of defendant Cari Arndt. Because Hanson has failed to comply with the Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, we deem her claims waived and affirm the judgment. ¶2 On appeal, Hanson has not identified any specific rulings she wishes this court to review. She has also failed to develop any legal argument or to provide appropriate citations to the record. See Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a)(6), (7)(A), (B); Ritchie v. Krasner, 221 Ariz. 288, ¶ 62, 211 P.3d 1272, 1289 (App. 2009) (“Opening briefs must present and address significant arguments, supported by authority that set forth the appellant’s position on the issue in question.”). While we acknowledge that Hanson is not represented by counsel, “a party who conducts a case without an attorney is entitled to no more consideration from the court than a party represented by counsel, and is held to the same standards expected of a lawyer.” Kelly v. NationsBanc Mortg. Corp., 199 Ariz. 284, ¶ 16, 17 P.3d 790, 793 (App. 2000). Accordingly, we deem any claims Hanson might have made waived. See Rice v. Brakel, 233 Ariz. 140, ¶ 28, 310 P.3d 16, 23 (App. 2013) (party that fails to “cite[] . . . relevant portions of the record [and] address[] the basis of the [trial] court’s decision” waives claim on appeal). ¶3 We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court. 1 The 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

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.