Halt v. Gama
238 Ariz. 352
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- The Halts sued to enforce a 1985 settlement/judgment preventing an HOA from imposing assessments; trial court originally entered judgment for the Halts including $100,000 plus fees and costs.
- Sunburst (successor HOA) moved under Rule 60(c) to vacate the 1985 judgment; trial court denied as untimely, and Halts recovered; Sunburst appealed.
- On appeal (briefing completed before Sept. 2013 oral argument), Sunburst asked only for attorneys’ fees "incurred on appeal" under A.R.S. § 12-341.01 and did not request pre-appeal fees in its briefs or by motion before argument.
- This Court reversed, concluding the 1985 agreement was unenforceable, vacated the judgment, and remanded; on remand Sunburst sought pre-appeal attorneys’ fees from the trial court as the prevailing party.
- The trial court awarded Sunburst pre-appeal fees; the Halts sought special action relief, arguing Sunburst waived pre-appeal fees by failing to timely request them under ARCAP Rule 21 as in effect during briefing.
- The Court accepted special action jurisdiction and considered whether Rule 21 (as amended effective Jan. 1, 2012) required fee requests for pre-appeal fees in appellate briefing or by motion before oral argument, and whether Sunburst waived those fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Halts) | Defendant's Argument (Sunburst) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sunburst waived claim for pre-appeal attorneys’ fees by failing to request them on appeal | Fee claim waived because Rule 21 (as in effect during briefing) required requesting pre-appeal fees in briefs or by motion before oral argument | Rule 21 no longer required pre-appeal fee requests in briefs; later amendments limit appellate requests to fees on appeal and should control | Held: Sunburst waived pre-appeal fees. Under the 2012 Rule 21 text and precedent, pre-appeal fees had to be requested on appeal or by motion before oral argument; failure to do so forfeits those fees. |
| Whether trial court exceeded mandate by awarding pre-appeal fees on remand | Awarding fees on remand was outside the mandate and thus improper (alternate argument) | Awarding fees on remand can be proper if allowable by statute or contract | Court did not resolve this argument because waiver dispositive; noted awards on remand can be permissible but declined to decide here. |
| Applicability of Rule 21 amendments enacted after briefing | N/A | Later (2014/2015) amendments narrow appellate fee requests to on-appeal fees and should apply to this appeal | Held: Inapplicable; later amendments became effective after briefing/oral argument and cannot be applied retroactively to revive waived claims. |
| Whether Halts entitled to fees for litigating the fee dispute and this special action | Halts asked for fees and costs under A.R.S. §§ 12-341 and 12-341.01 | N/A | Court denied Halts’ request for attorneys’ fees in its discretion but awarded taxable costs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Raimey v. Ditsworth, 227 Ariz. 552 (App. 2011) (mandate-directed remand is not an appealable judgment)
- Robert E. Mann Constr. Co. v. Hebert Corp., 204 Ariz. 129 (App. 2003) (failure to request fees on appeal under Rule 21 precludes seeking pre-appeal fees on remand)
- Parker v. McNeill, 214 Ariz. 495 (App. 2007) (Rule 21 establishes a two-step process: request on appeal then submit statement of amount if allowed)
- Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Mem'l Hosp., 147 Ariz. 370 (1985) (fee-shifting statutes serve settlement-promoting purpose; parties must have notice of fee requests)
- City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 209 Ariz. 544 (2005) (procedural rule changes may apply retroactively except when they impair vested rights)
- Balestrieri v. Balestrieri, 232 Ariz. 25 (App. 2013) (Rule 21 notice requirement promotes early settlement and bars belated fee requests)