Craig v. Craig
227 Ariz. 105
| Ariz. | 2011Background
- Dissolution decree issued Sept. 9, 2008; Husband moved for new trial/amendment; Wife filed notice of appeal before ruling; Husband cross-appealed; superior court denied motion; neither party filed new/ amended notice of appeal; court of appeals dismissed both appeals; this court granted review on statewide importance of appellate jurisdiction.
- Earlier cases formed backdrop: Barassi recognized a limited exception allowing a premature appeal when only ministerial tasks remained; Baumann rejected premature appeals; Performance Funding allowed jurisdiction when other party’s motion was pending; Smith limited Barassi; Engel rejected Performance Funding; this case reaffirms Barassi’s limited exception.
- This opinion resolves whether a notice of appeal filed by a non-moving party can be effective and affirms the Court of Appeals’ dismissal.
- The court emphasizes that a premature notice of appeal is generally a nullity; the Barassi exception applies only if no decision could change and only ministerial tasks remain.
- The court suggests a potential post-decision remedy by stipulation for fresh notices, but holds the current premature notices invalid.
- Concurrences note alignment with Barassi and ARCAP 9, and reject adopting a federal rule over state rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Premature notices of appeal by non-movant are effective? | Craig argues Barassi should apply. | Craig contends Performance Funding controls. | Premature notices generally ineffective; Barassi limited exception reaffirmed. |
| Whether Barassi remains valid vs. Smith/Engel lineage? | Wife relies on Performance Funding lineage. | Husband argues Barassi remains controlling. | Barassi is limited; other lines rejected; Barassi governs here. |
| Force of ARCAP 9(b) vs. federal rule analogies? | Wife urges ARCAP 9(b) parity with FRAP 4(a)(4). | Husband argues no parity; rule remains distinct. | Arizona rule not read as federal; maintain current interpretation. |
| Should appeals be reinstated via Rule 85(C)(1)(f) stipulation? | Parties propose temporary relief and reinstatement. | Parties seek streamlined process; trial court to grant stipulation. | Stipulation procedure feasible; directs fresh notices if appeals reinstated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barassi v. Matison, 130 Ariz. 418 (1981) (premature appeal exception to final judgment rule; general rule intact)
- Baumann v. Tuton, 180 Ariz. 370 (1994) (premature notices of appeal are nullities when motion pending)
- Performance Funding, L.L.C. v. Barcon Corp., 197 Ariz. 286 (App. 2000) (permitted appeal despite other party's pending motion; rejected later as controlling rule)
- Smith v. Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Comm., 212 Ariz. 407 (2006) (limited Barassi exception; no broader application)
- Engel v. Landman, 221 Ariz. 504 (App. 2009) (confirms Performance Funding no longer controlling; bars premature appeals)