Rogone v. Correia
236 Ariz. 43
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Rogones sued Rose as trustee of two trusts; California judgment later registered in Arizona and enforced against Sassers.
- Sassers completed three property transfers with help of Aiken Schenk; Hot Springs Property to John’s trust, E. Bronco Trail Property to E Bronco Trail Rental LLC, and a postnuptial agreement waiving interests.
- Arizona court found transfers were made with actual intent to delay, hinder, or defraud Rogones; set aside E. Bronco Trail transfer, ordered sale or conveyance to satisfy judgments, and voided the postnuptial agreement.
- Rogones sought attorney’s fees; court awarded fees against Sassers but not against Aiken Schenk.
- Rose moved into E. Bronco Trail Property and claimed homestead exemption; court denied exemption on equitable grounds but later this portion is reversed on appeal.
- Final appellate posture: court vacates second amended judgment, affirms attorney’s fees order and denial of new trial on fees, but reverses denial of homestead exemption based on equitable grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly vacated the second amended judgment. | Rogones argue abuse of discretion. | Sassers contend proper Rule 60(c) grounds and jurisdiction. | Yes; court did not abuse discretion under Rule 60(c). |
| Whether Rose's E. Bronco Trail Property qualifies as homestead despite equity concerns. | Rogones argue exemption should be controlled by statute. | Rose/ Sassers contend equity can defeat exemption. | No; equitably-based denial reversed; exemption available as statute permits. |
| Whether attorney’s fees against the Sassers were appropriate. | Rogones contend conduct shown harassing and willful. | Sassers argue defense not groundless; Aiken Schenk not liable. | Fees upheld against Sassers; no abuse of discretion. |
| Whether the Sassers’ motion for new trial on attorney’s fees was properly denied. | Rogones argue trial counsel conflict; new trial warranted. | Sassers assert ethical conflict not entitling to new trial. | Denial affirmed; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cypress on Sunland Homeowners Ass’n v. Orlandini, 227 Ariz. 288 (App. 2011) (Rule 60(c) fraud tolling and relief standards discussed)
- Hibbs v. Calcot, Ltd., 166 Ariz. 210 (App. 1990) (jurisdictional considerations in 60(c) motions)
- Peterson v. Speakman, 49 Ariz. 342 (1937) (jurisdictional principles; court's power to modify judgments)
- In re Farnsworth, 384 B.R. 842 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2008) (equitable treatment of homestead exemptions in bankruptcy context)
- In re Glaze, 169 B.R. 956 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 1994) (homestead exemption considerations)
- Strahan v. Haynes, 33 Ariz. 128 (1928) (historic view on homestead exemptions)
- First Nat’l Bank of Doña Ana Cnty. v. Boyd, 378 F.Supp. 961 (D. Ariz. 1974) (statutory interpretation of homestead exemption)
- Matcha v. Winn, 131 Ariz. 115 (App. 1981) (liberal construction of homestead statutes)
- Amanti Elec., Inc. v. Engineered Structures, Inc., 229 Ariz. 430 (App. 2012) (framework for analyzing Rule 60(c) relief)
- Gendron v. Skyline Bel Air Estates, 121 Ariz. 367 (App. 1979) (broad discretion under 60(c))
- A.R.S. § 12-349, (Arizona statute) (—) (attorney’s fees framework and standards)