Shah v. Vakharwala
418 P.3d 974
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Shah (in Arizona) obtained a 2015 Arizona order of protection against ex-husband Vakharwala (in Georgia) prohibiting contact except by limited written mail or through attorneys; Georgia divorce decree incorporated similar limits and allowed limited video contact with the child under restrictions.
- The 2015 Arizona order was set to expire after one year; Shah sought and obtained an ex parte 2016 protective order after alleging multiple incidents of domestic violence and harassment, including repeated law-enforcement complaints by Vakharwala and unauthorized video contacts.
- Shah alleged Vakharwala violated the 2015 order by initiating video contact on June 7, 2016; she produced screenshots and testified she was in Amsterdam while her child was in Arizona.
- Vakharwala requested an evidentiary hearing, argued on appeal the court lacked jurisdiction because the alleged violation occurred outside Arizona and challenged sufficiency of evidence and court procedure.
- The superior court found the June 7 video chat violated the 2015 order, continued the 2016 protective order, and Vakharwala appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction to enforce order for out-of-state conduct | Shah: court may enforce its order and continue protection based on violations of prior order | Vakharwala: court lacked jurisdiction because the June 7 chat occurred outside Arizona | Held: Court has subject-matter jurisdiction to enforce its orders; violations need not occur in Arizona |
| Personal jurisdiction | Shah: Vakharwala submitted to court process by appearance and requesting hearing | Vakharwala: implied challenge to personal jurisdiction | Held: Vakharwala waived personal-jurisdiction challenge by general appearance |
| Sufficiency of evidence that June 7 chat violated order | Shah: screenshots and testimony show chat was directed at her in violation of the 2015 order | Vakharwala: chat not directed at Shah / insufficient | Held: Evidence supported finding the chat was directed to Shah; court did not abuse discretion |
| Procedural/Rule 38(h) and court advisement intimidation | Shah: court stated basis on record; advisals were proper | Vakharwala: minute entry lacked specifics; advisals intimidated him from testifying | Held: Rule 38(h) satisfied by oral statement on the record; advisements did not constitute waiver or reversible error and issues were waived for not raised below |
Key Cases Cited
- Michaelson v. Garr, 234 Ariz. 542 (App. 2014) (broad definition of domestic violence includes electronic communication)
- Cardoso v. Soldo, 230 Ariz. 614 (App. 2012) (trial court credibility findings entitled to deference)
- State v. Chavez, 123 Ariz. 538 (App. 1979) (orders of a court with jurisdiction must be obeyed until properly reversed)
- State v. Chacon, 221 Ariz. 523 (App. 2009) (subject-matter jurisdiction defined as a court's power to hear a controversy)
- Ins. Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694 (1982) (party may waive personal jurisdiction by consenting to court process)
- Tarr v. Superior Court in & for Pima County, 142 Ariz. 349 (1984) (general appearance by a defendant subjects them to jurisdiction)
- Hahn v. Pima County, 200 Ariz. 167 (App. 2001) (issues not raised at trial are waived on appeal)
- Ritchie v. Krasner, 221 Ariz. 288 (App. 2009) (appellate briefing requirements; arguments unsupported by authority are forfeited)