ALBERT MORA v. KURISSA MERCER

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO ALBERT MORA, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. KURISSA MERCER, Defendant/Appellant. No. 2 CA-CV 2017-0025 Filed August 4, 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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. DV20170218 The Honorable Lisa I. Abrams, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED Albert Mora, Tucson In Propria Persona Kurissa Mercer, Tempe In Propria Persona MORA v. MERCER Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Chief Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Vásquez and Judge Howard1 concurred. E C K E R S T R O M, Chief Judge: ¶1 Defendant Kurissa Mercer appeals from the trial court’s grant of a protective order in favor of plaintiff Albert Mora. Because Mercer has failed to comply with the Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, we deem her arguments waived and affirm the judgment of the trial court. ¶2 On appeal, although Mercer challenges the factual basis for the order of protection, she has 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.”). Moreover, the documents she relies on were not admitted in the trial court and are therefore not included in the record on appeal. See GM Dev. Corp. v. Cmty. Am. Mortg. Corp., 165 Ariz. 1, 4, 795 P.2d 827, 830 (App. 1990) (evidence not considered by trial court may not be considered by appellate court).2 ¶3 While we acknowledge that Mercer 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 1The Hon. Joseph W. Howard, 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. 2Although Mercer requested a hearing on the protective order, she did not appear. Nor did she file a motion pursuant to Rule 85(C), Ariz. R. Fam. Law P., seeking relief from the judgment. 2 MORA v. MERCER Decision of the Court 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 arguments Mercer 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). ¶4 We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court. 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.