IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF AGUIRRE & MERCADO

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF CRUZ AGUIRRE, Petitioner/Appellee, and RUBI MERCADO, Respondent/Appellant. No. 2 CA-CV 2017-0039-FC Filed September 20, 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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. D20150314 The Honorable James E. Marner, Judge AFFIRMED Cruz Aguirre, Marysville, Washington In Propria Persona Rubi Mercado, Simi Valley, California In Propria Persona IN RE MARRIAGE OF AGUIRRE & MERCADO Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Chief Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Vásquez and Judge Eppich concurred. E C K E R S T R O M, Chief Judge: ¶1 Respondent Rubi Mercado appeals from the trial court’s order allowing petitioner Cruz Aguirre to relocate to Everett, Washington with their minor child. Because Mercado has failed to comply with the Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, we deem her claims waived and affirm the judgment of the trial court. ¶2 On appeal, Mercado challenges the trial court’s ruling on the exclusion of certain evidence. She also claims the court “did abuse [its] discretion by granting [Aguirre] custody.” However, she has failed to develop any legal argument or cite any authority in support of her positions. 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.”). Although we acknowledge that Mercado 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 Mercado 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 trial court’s order. 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.