Mary Anna Sotomayor v. Pauline Sotomayor-Munoz
239 Ariz. 288
Ariz. Ct. App.2016Background
- Landlord Mary Anna Sotomayor sued her daughter Pauline Sotomayor-Muñoz in forcible detainer (eviction), alleging wrongful occupancy and conversion of funds.
- Trial court denied Muñoz’s motion to dismiss, found Sotomayor owned the property, and entered a judgment for eviction on April 9, 2015.
- Muñoz filed a Rule 15 (Ariz. R. P. Eviction Actions) motion to set aside the judgment the same day, arguing lack of jurisdiction and an ownership dispute; the trial court denied that motion in late June 2015.
- Muñoz filed a notice of appeal on July 1, 2015, appealing both the April judgment and the June order denying her Rule 15 motion.
- Sotomayor moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely; the Court of Appeals raised and analyzed its jurisdiction sua sponte and concluded it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
- The court declined to award sanctions to Sotomayor for the appeal because she failed to identify a statutory basis or show the appeal was frivolous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal from the April 9 judgment was timely | Sotomayor: Muñoz’s notice of appeal was untimely; must be filed within 30 days under Rule 9 | Muñoz: Her Rule 15 motion extended the appeal period (effectively a new-trial-type motion) | Appeal from April judgment untimely; court lacks jurisdiction to review it |
| Whether denial of Rule 15 motion is separately appealable as a special post-judgment order under A.R.S. § 12-2101 | Sotomayor: Rule 15 denial is not an appealable special order; allowing it would permit a delayed appeal | Muñoz: Denial of Rule 15 motion should be appealable (analogous to Rule 59/60 post-judgment motions) | Denial of Rule 15 is not appealable here because it primarily challenged the merits and would amount to a delayed appeal |
| Whether Rule 15 motion functions like Rule 59/60 to extend appeal deadlines | Sotomayor: Post-judgment civil rules provisions do not apply in eviction actions absent incorporation | Muñoz: Her motion should be treated like a Rule 59 motion, extending time to appeal | Civil Rules do not automatically apply in eviction proceedings; Rule 15 is not listed in Rule 9(e) so it did not extend appeal time |
| Whether sanctions were warranted against Muñoz for vexatious litigation | Sotomayor: Requests fees and sanctions for frivolous filings and repeated litigation | Muñoz: (Responded by defending appeal and motions) | Court denied sanctions — plaintiff failed to cite statutory basis or show appeals were frivolous |
Key Cases Cited
- McDougall v. Superior Court, 170 Ariz. 474, 826 P.2d 337 (App. 1991) (appellate courts have only statutory jurisdiction)
- James v. Arizona, 215 Ariz. 182, 158 P.3d 905 (App. 2007) (timely perfecting of appeal is jurisdictional)
- McMurray v. Dream Catcher USA, Inc., 220 Ariz. 71, 202 P.3d 536 (App. 2009) (court must independently determine appellate jurisdiction)
- Arvizu v. Fernandez, 183 Ariz. 224, 902 P.2d 830 (App. 1995) (test for whether post-judgment order is an appealable special order)
- M & M Auto Storage Pool, Inc. v. Chem. Waste Mgmt., Inc., 164 Ariz. 139, 791 P.2d 665 (App. 1990) (ruling on certain post-judgment motions can be appealable)