Jokobov v. Dekermendjian
1 CA-CV 14-0828
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Oct 27, 2016Background
- Gregory Dekermendjian was sole shareholder, officer, and director of Jolie Cadeavx, Inc. (Smoke 4 Less) until 2012, when Marik Jokobov became an officer and director.
- Central dispute: whether Jokobov invested in the company by purchasing stock and, if so, whether he paid $30,000 and/or $20,000.
- Jokobov alleged two payments: $30,000 and $20,000; the Dekermendjians denied any investment occurred.
- After a bench trial, the superior court found Jokobov had tendered and Gregory accepted the $30,000 payment, but did not find the $20,000 payment was tendered.
- Dekermendjians failed to include the trial transcript in the appellate record; the Court of Appeals therefore presumed the missing record supported the superior court’s findings.
- The superior court awarded Jokobov $39,480.33 in attorneys’ fees under A.R.S. § 12-341.01; the Court of Appeals affirmed the fee award and the underlying judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jokobov invested by paying $30,000 | Jokobov argued he tendered $30,000 and Gregory accepted it | Dekermendjians denied any payment or investment | Court found Jokobov proved the $30,000 payment; judgment for Jokobov |
| Whether Jokobov paid an additional $20,000 | Jokobov alleged a separate $20,000 payment | Dekermendjians denied the $20,000 payment | Court did not find the $20,000 was tendered |
| Whether trial findings were unsupported or based on fraudulent evidence | Jokobov relied on the evidence admitted at trial | Dekermendjians claimed findings lacked support and rested on fraudulent evidence | Appellate court presumes the missing transcript supports trial court; rejects defendants’ challenge |
| Whether awarding attorneys’ fees under A.R.S. § 12-341.01 was improper | Jokobov sought fees as the successful party on a contract claim | Dekermendjians challenged the fee award | Court held Jokobov was the successful party and affirmed $39,480.33 fee award; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Blair v. Burgener, 226 Ariz. 213, 245 P.3d 898 (App. 2010) (missing trial transcript leads appellate court to presume record supports trial court’s findings)
- Vortex Corp. v. Denkewicz, 235 Ariz. 551, 334 P.3d 734 (App. 2014) (attorney-fee awards reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Berry v. 352 E. Virginia L.L.C., 228 Ariz. 9, 261 P.3d 784 (App. 2011) (trial court best positioned to determine prevailing party; recovery less than amount sought can still be a win)
- Tucson Estates Prop. Owners Ass’n, Inc. v. McGovern, 239 Ariz. 52, 366 P.3d 111 (App. 2016) (court may consider whether dispute could have been settled when awarding fees)
- Verdugo v. Po Shing Gee, 4 Ariz. App. 113, 417 P.2d 747 (App. 1966) (appellate court will not consider materials outside the superior-court record)