Boyilla v. Boyilla
1 CA-CV 17-0017-FC
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Dec 5, 2017Background
- Parties divorced by decree on June 6, 2016; court ordered sale of marital residence and allowed Wife to remain until August 1, 2016 or until sale, and appointed a real estate commissioner.
- Wife asked for a supersedeas bond to stay enforcement so she could remain in the house; family court denied the motion.
- Husband moved for sanctions and attorneys’ fees after Wife failed to vacate and allegedly failed to cooperate with the commissioner; court found Wife in indirect civil contempt at a show-cause hearing and set a final vacate date.
- Court ordered monetary sanctions for days Wife remained and required Wife to reimburse Husband and the commissioner for attorneys’ fees; ultimately awarded Husband $4,633.50 in fees on November 18, 2016.
- Residence later sold; Husband obtained release of sale proceeds and sought fees and costs for that request. Wife appealed the November 18 fee order and raised additional challenges (supersedeas bond denial, contempt finding, order to vacate) which the Court of Appeals declined to address on this appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred denying supersedeas bond | Wife: denial unlawfully prevented stay so she could remain in house | Husband: denial appropriate; challenge must be by special action | Not addressed on appeal—challenge must be brought by special action, therefore declined |
| Whether order denying stay/release of sale proceeds was improper | Wife: court should have stayed release of proceeds to Husband | Husband: release proper and was executed by title company | Moot: sale proceeds already distributed; no public importance shown |
| Whether contempt finding and order to vacate were erroneous | Wife: contends court erred in finding indirect civil contempt and ordering vacatur | Husband: contempt finding supported by Wife’s failure to vacate and cooperate | Not addressed on appeal—challenge to civil contempt must be by special action; also moot because residence sold and vacated |
| Whether award of attorneys’ fees to Husband under A.R.S. § 25-324 was proper | Wife: (briefing deficiencies; no transcripts) implies error | Husband: fees warranted because Wife’s positions were unreasonable and record supports fees | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; $4,633.50 award supported by record |
Key Cases Cited
- City Ctr. Exec. Plaza, LLC v. Jantzen, 237 Ariz. 37 (App. 2015) (challenge to supersedeas bond relief should be by special action)
- Kondaur Capital Corp. v. Pinal Cty., 235 Ariz. 189 (App. 2014) (courts generally refrain from deciding moot issues)
- Melissa W. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 238 Ariz. 115 (App. 2015) (arguments may be waived where appellant fails to cite legal authority as required)
- State ex rel. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. v. Burton, 205 Ariz. 27 (App. 2003) (when appellant fails to provide transcripts, appellate court assumes record supports trial court)
- Breitbart-Napp v. Napp, 216 Ariz. 74 (App. 2007) (standard of review for attorney-fee awards under A.R.S. § 25-324 is abuse of discretion)
- Berry v. Superior Court, 163 Ariz. 507 (App. 1989) (no subject-matter jurisdiction on appeal from civil contempt order; special action appropriate)
- BMO Harris Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Bluff, 229 Ariz. 511 (App. 2012) (challenge to civil contempt should be by special action)
- Stoddard v. Donahoe, 224 Ariz. 152 (App. 2010) (same: contempt challenges belong in special action)