Gohr v. Ford
1 CA-CV 16-0179
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Jan 9, 2018Background
- The trustee sought judicial interpretation of the Ferne Beverly Ford Trust; the trial court found the trust ambiguous, held an evidentiary hearing, and ruled for Horatio Ford (the appellee).
- The trial court’s June 2015 minute entry stated, pursuant to Rule 54(c), that no further matters remained and that the entry was a final, appealable order.
- The Gohr Beneficiaries (appellants) did not appeal within 30 days. Nearly two months later, with new counsel, they moved under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 60(b) to obtain relief and pursue a delayed appeal, submitting an affidavit from prior counsel who said he failed to read the finality language.
- In September 2015 the trial court granted the Rule 60(b) motion (re-entering the judgment) and sua sponte awarded attorneys’ fees to Ford, finding the delay was caused solely by the Gohr Beneficiaries’ counsel.
- The Gohr Beneficiaries moved to amend the judgment and for a new trial as to attorneys’ fees; the court later amended the re-entry nunc pro tunc to the September date and awarded Ford additional fees.
- The appellate court reviewed whether the Rule 60(b) relief was proper and whether the attorneys’ fee awards were authorized, and reversed the Rule 60(b) grant and part of the fee awards, remanding limited fee matters for findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 60(b) relief (delayed appeal) was properly granted | Gohr Beneficiaries: counsel’s failure to read the finality language was excusable neglect warranting relief | Ford: counsel’s failure to read the judgment is not excusable neglect as a matter of law; no delayed appeal | Reversed: trial court abused discretion by not determining excusable neglect; on undisputed facts neglect was not excusable, so Rule 60(b) relief was improvidently granted |
| Whether Rule 60(b) authorized sua sponte attorneys’ fees as a condition of relief | Gohr Beneficiaries: Rule 60(b) does not authorize fee awards for a delayed appeal | Ford: Rule 60(b)’s "just terms" permits conditioning relief on payment of fees | Reversed: because Rule 60(b) relief was improper, the Rule 60(b) rationale for fees fails |
| Whether trial court properly awarded attorneys’ fees for responding to motion to amend judgment/new trial under A.R.S. § 12‑349 | Gohr Beneficiaries: court failed to make required statutory findings for § 12‑349 fee award | Ford: fees for that response are authorized under § 12‑349 | Remanded: trial court did not make the statutorily required specific findings; fees must be re-evaluated with proper findings |
| Effect on underlying merits appeal | N/A | N/A | Moot: because delayed appeal was improper, the underlying merits appeal is dismissed as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Phoenix v. Geyler, 144 Ariz. 323 (Arizona 1985) (standard for excusable neglect and need for stronger showing to reopen judgment for delayed appeal)
- Horton v. Mitchell, 200 Ariz. 523 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001) (abuse of discretion occurs when court misapplies governing law)
- LaFaro v. Cahill, 203 Ariz. 482 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002) (misapplication of law to undisputed facts is an abuse of discretion)
- Sign Here Petitions LLC v. Chavez, 243 Ariz. 99 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017) (excusable neglect does not mean mere carelessness)
- Brandt v. American Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla., 653 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2011) (examples of conditioning Rule 60 relief on payment of fees in federal context)