Rogone v. Sasser
1 CA-CV 16-0293
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Mar 23, 2017Background
- Rogone plaintiffs (John and Jason Rogone, successors to a trust) sued their mother, Rosira "Rose" Sasser, alleging three fraudulent transfers; an advisory jury found all three transfers fraudulent and the court ordered sale of the Bronco Trail Property.
- Rose moved into the Bronco Trail Property and declared a homestead exemption before the sheriff’s sale; the Rogones purchased the property at sheriff’s sale on January 6, 2011, and received the deed July 26, 2011.
- The superior court originally denied Rose’s homestead claim on equitable grounds; this court reversed in Rogone v. Correia (236 Ariz. 43) holding homestead exemptions are not subject to equitable defenses and can be declared any time before sale.
- After remand Rose proposed a Fourth Amended Judgment awarding her the $150,000 statutory homestead exemption plus 10% post-judgment interest from July 26, 2011; the superior court signed it nunc pro tunc to November 24, 2009.
- The Rogones appealed, arguing (1) Rose was not entitled to the exemption as a matter of law or without further factual hearings on abandonment/waste, and (2) the correct post-judgment interest rate is prime plus 1% under the amended A.R.S. § 44-1201(B) effective July 20, 2011.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed Rose’s entitlement to the homestead exemption but held the correct post-judgment interest rate from July 26, 2011 is 4.25% (prime 3.25% + 1%), modifying the judgment and remanding for entry of an amended judgment reflecting that rate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rogone) | Defendant's Argument (Sasser) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Rose entitled to homestead exemption in Bronco Trail Property? | Court should not have found entitlement; earlier reversal only barred equitable denial and did not establish entitlement. | Rose declared homestead before sale; affidavits support non-abandonment; homestead attaches to proceeds on sale. | Affirmed: substantial evidence supports homestead; abandonment/waste claims were waived for being untimely. |
| Should the court hold an evidentiary hearing on abandonment? | Trial court should have held hearing to resolve whether Rose abandoned the property prior to sale. | Rose submitted affidavits; Rogones never rebutted or timely raised the issue. | Denied: no timely challenge or evidence of abandonment; issue waived. |
| Could alleged waste offset homestead exemption? | Waste could offset exemption; an evidentiary hearing was required. | No evidence in record of waste; issue was not timely raised. | Denied: no evidence of waste and claim waived. |
| Correct post-judgment interest rate on homestead award? | 10% (as in the Fourth Amended Judgment) or entry nunc pro tunc justifies higher rate. | Post-judgment interest should follow amended A.R.S. § 44-1201(B): prime + 1%. | Modified: interest rate is prime + 1% from July 26, 2011; federal prime was 3.25% then, so 4.25% applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rogone v. Correia, 236 Ariz. 43 (App. 2014) (homestead exemption may be declared any time before sale and is not subject to equitable defenses)
- Metzler v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles, Inc., 235 Ariz. 141 (2014) (application of statutory post-judgment interest rate)
- Ramsey v. Arizona Registrar of Contractors, 241 Ariz. 102 (App. 2016) (standard of review: factual findings will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous)
- PLM Tax Certificate Program 1991-92, L.P. v. Schweikert, 216 Ariz. 47 (App. 2007) (issues not raised in first appeal are waived in subsequent appeals)
- Raimey v. Ditsworth, 227 Ariz. 552 (App. 2011) (when a judgment is set aside, restitution may be required where justice demands)
- Kocher v. Department of Revenue of Arizona, 206 Ariz. 480 (App. 2003) (substantial evidence standard for factual findings)