IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF SANDERS & PARKS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF DOUGLAS M. SANDERS, Petitioner/Appellant, and RUBY PARKS, Respondent/Appellee. No. 2 CA-CV 2017-0048-FC Filed September 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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. D20080264 The Honorable James E. Marner, Judge APPEAL DISMISSED COUNSEL Sidney L. Kain, Tucson Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant Elkins & Associates, P.L.L.C., Tucson By C. Joy Elkins Counsel for Respondent/Appellee IN RE MARRIAGE OF SANDERS & PARKS 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 Douglas Sanders appeals the trial court’s order modifying child support. Because we do not have jurisdiction, we dismiss his appeal. ¶2 Regardless of whether the parties raise the issue, we have “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). With limited exceptions, this court’s jurisdiction is restricted to appeals from final judgments that dispose of all claims as to all parties. See In re Marriage of Johnson and Gravino, 231 Ariz. 228, ¶ 5, 293 P.3d 504, 506 (App. 2012); see also A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(1). Judgments resolving less than “all of the claims” are appealable only “upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment.” Ariz. R. Fam. Law. P. 78(B); see Ariz. R. Civ. P. 54(b). In the absence of such determinations, “a judgment that does not dispose of a request for attorney’s fees is not final for purposes of appeal.” Bollermann v. Nowlis, 234 Ariz. 340, ¶ 8, 322 P.3d 157, 159 (2014). ¶3 The trial court’s January 2017 under-advisement ruling from which Sanders has appealed was not final because it did not resolve the amount of attorney fees to be awarded and did not contain Rule 78(B) language. See id. Thus, Sanders’s February notice of appeal was premature. See Camasura, 238 Ariz. 179, ¶ 6, 358 P.3d at 602 (“A notice of appeal filed in the absence of a final judgment is premature.”). Further, Sanders’s premature notice cannot be treated as having been filed “on the date of, and after the entry of, the judgment” pursuant to Rule 9(c), Ariz. R. Civ. App. P., because the January ruling left attorney fees unresolved and, therefore, could not have resulted in a final judgment. See Camasura, 238 Ariz. 179, ¶¶ 7, 2 IN RE MARRIAGE OF SANDERS & PARKS Decision of the Court 15, 358 P.3d at 602-03, 604. Accordingly, Sanders’s premature notice of appeal was “‘ineffective’ and a nullity.” See id. ¶ 9. Finally, Sanders did not file a notice of appeal following the court’s March 2017 final judgment. See Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 9(a) (party must file notice of appeal no later than thirty days after entry of judgment unless otherwise provided). In the absence of a timely notice of appeal, we lack jurisdiction. See id. Accordingly, we dismiss Sanders’s 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.
