MEGAN WINTERS v. TANYA WINTERS

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO MEGAN WINTERS, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. TANYA WINTERS, Defendant/Appellant. No. 2 CA-CV 2019-0024 Filed June 17, 2019 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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 Gila County No. PO20190004 The Honorable Timothy M. Wright, Judge AFFIRMED Tanya Winters, Payson In Propria Persona WINTERS v. WINTERS Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Brearcliffe authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Staring and Judge Vásquez concurred. B R E A R C L I F F E, Judge: ¶1 Tanya Winters appeals from the trial court’s grant of an injunction against harassment in favor of her daughter, Megan Winters. We affirm. Factual and Procedural Background ¶2 On January 16, 2019, Megan Winters filed a petition for an injunction against harassment against Tanya. That same day, the trial court granted the injunction, after holding an ex parte hearing and finding reasonable cause. After being served with the injunction, Tanya requested a hearing. On January 31, 2019, after hearing testimony from Megan Winters and Tanya, the court denied Tanya’s request that the injunction be modified. This appeal followed, and we have jurisdiction under A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 12-2101(A)(5)(b). Discussion ¶3 We review a trial court’s grant of an injunction against harassment for an abuse of discretion. LaFaro v. Cahill, 203 Ariz. 482, ¶ 10 (App. 2002). An injunction against harassment may be issued when the court finds “reasonable evidence of harassment of the plaintiff by the defendant during the year preceding the filing of the petition or that good cause exists to believe that great or irreparable harm would result to the plaintiff if the injunction is not granted.” Id. ¶ 11 (quoting A.R.S. § 121809(E)). A trial court abuses its discretion in issuing an injunction against harassment when the record fails to show “substantial evidence to support” the injunction. Wood v. Abril, 244 Ariz. 436, ¶ 6 (App. 2018) (quoting Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Pochiro, 153 Ariz. 368, 370 (App. 1987). ¶4 Tanya’s argument appears to be that the injunction should be vacated because she did not harass the appellee and does not intend to do so. However, because Tanya provides no transcripts from either the January 16 or the January 31 hearings, we presume that the record supports the trial court’s ruling. See Varco, Inc. v. UNS Elec., Inc., 242 Ariz. 166, ¶ 3 2 WINTERS v. WINTERS Decision of the Court (App. 2017) (presuming “missing transcript would support the [trial] court’s ruling”); see also Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 11(c)(1)(B) (“If the appellant will contend on appeal that a judgment, finding or conclusion, is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the evidence, the appellant must include in the record transcripts of all proceedings containing evidence relevant to that judgment, finding or conclusion.”). Tanya makes no other cognizable claims that can be addressed on review. See Ritchie v. Krasner, 221 Ariz. 288, ¶ 62 (App. 2009) (citations omitted) (“Opening briefs must present and address significant arguments, supported by authority that set forth the appellant’s position on the issue in question. . . . Failure to do so can constitute abandonment and waiver of that claim.”); see also Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a)(7). Disposition ¶5 We affirm the trial court’s order of an injunction against harassment against Tanya. 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.