Aea Federal v. Yuma Funding
1 CA-CV 15-0753
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Dec 22, 2016Background
- Yuma Funding, an Arizona corp. owned by Ken Stevenson and family, obtained ~300 loans from AEA to finance vehicle purchases from Stevenson's dealership; many loans were secured or personally guaranteed.
- In January 2010 AEA sued for breach of contract and the superior court the same day appointed a receiver and issued injunctions requiring Yuma Funding to deliver books/assets to the receiver.
- AEA obtained default against Yuma Funding after delayed service; a default-judgment motion remained pending.
- In July 2010 the court ordered the receiver to provide a final accounting, approved final compensation, released the receiver from liability, and directed the receiver to abandon books/records.
- Yuma Funding unsuccessfully moved (2013) to set aside the receiver appointment; this court previously held it lacked jurisdiction to review that denial (AEA I).
- In March 2015 Yuma Funding moved to dissolve the injunctions and to recover books/assets and to be restored to pre-receivership status; in October 2015 the superior court quashed the injunctions prospectively but denied return of books/assets and retroactive restoration. Yuma Funding appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (AEA) | Defendant's Argument (Yuma Funding) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether this court has jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(5)(b) to review the October 2015 order | The court lacks jurisdiction because Yuma Funding was not aggrieved as to the injunction dissolution and the other denials are not independently appealable interlocutory orders | The October 2015 order dissolved an injunction, so appellate jurisdiction exists under § 12-2101(A)(5)(b) despite no final judgment | Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction: Yuma Funding cannot appeal the favorable injunction dissolution, and the denial of other relief is interlocutory and not appealable absent a final judgment under Rule 54(b)/(c). |
| Whether Yuma Funding was aggrieved by the court's dissolution of the injunctions | N/A — AEA argued jurisdictional defect | Yuma Funding argued it was aggrieved and entitled to appellate review of the injunction dissolution and related denials | Court held Yuma Funding was not aggrieved by the injunction-quash (it requested and obtained dissolution), so no appealable injury on that point. |
| Whether denial of return of books/assets and retroactive restoration is separately appealable | Denial of affirmative interlocutory relief is not appealable without final judgment | Yuma Funding contended the denial was part of the injunction-related relief and thus appealable under § 12-2101(A)(5)(b) | Held not appealable: those denials are interlocutory affirmative relief and require final-judgment appealability (Rule 54). |
| Whether Rule 54(b)/(c) certification was required for appellate jurisdiction | Court must have final judgment or statutory authorization; § 12-2101(A)(5)(b) can permit interlocutory appeals for injunctions without Rule 54 certification but only when a party is aggrieved | Yuma Funding argued § 12-2101(A)(5)(b) provides jurisdiction without Rule 54 certification | Held that § 12-2101(A)(5)(b) does not help here because Yuma Funding was not aggrieved by the injunction dissolution and other denials are not injunction-dissolution appeals. |
Key Cases Cited
- AEA Federal Credit Union v. Yuma Funding, Inc., 237 Ariz. 105, 346 P.3d 991 (App. 2015) (prior decision holding appellate jurisdiction lacking to review denial of motion to set aside receiver appointment)
- Brumett v. MGA Home Healthcare, L.L.C., 240 Ariz. 421, 380 P.3d 659 (App. 2016) (discusses interlocutory appellate jurisdiction for orders affecting injunctions and Rule 54 certification)
- Kondaur Capital Corp. v. Pinal Cty., 235 Ariz. 189, 330 P.3d 379 (App. 2014) (appellate jurisdiction limited to party aggrieved; a party may not appeal a favorable ruling)