Opinion
2 CA-CV 2024-0017
05-17-2024
339 Properties LLC, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Tom Schaults, Defendant/Appellant.
Zona Law Group P.C., Scottsdale By Scott E. Williams and Amy N. Toppel Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee Thomas Bradford Schaults, Casa Grande In Propria Persona
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Pinal County No. S1100CV202302223 The Honorable Joseph W. Howard, Judge Pro Tempore
Zona Law Group P.C., Scottsdale By Scott E. Williams and Amy N. Toppel Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee
Thomas Bradford Schaults, Casa Grande In Propria Persona
Presiding Judge Eppich authored the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Vasquez and Judge Gard concurred.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
EPPICH, PRESIDING JUDGE
¶1 Tom Schaults appeals from the superior court's judgment finding him guilty of forcible detainer. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Factual and Procedural Background
¶2 In February 2023, 339 Properties LLC purchased real property at a trustee's sale. In October, 339 Properties notified Schaults that his right to occupy the subject property had been terminated and demanded that he relinquish possession. Thereafter, 339 Properties filed an action for forcible detainer, alleging Schaults remained on the property despite the notice and demand. After a hearing, the superior court found Schaults guilty of forcible detainer and ordered that he relinquish possession of the property. The court also ordered that Schaults pay 339 Properties rent, attorney fees and costs, and interest totaling "$22,913.00, plus after accruing costs." Schaults appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1) and 12-2101(A)(1).
Discussion
¶3 On appeal, Schaults makes numerous arguments, which appear to include challenges to the trustee sale, challenges to the superior court's jurisdiction, alleged constitutional violations, and arguments under criminal and contract law. However, we are unable to discern the relevant legal basis of Schaults's arguments, and his failure to meaningfully comply with Rule 13(a)(7), Ariz. R. Civ. App. P., further prevents our review.
¶4 Rule 13(a)(7)(A) requires that an opening brief contain "[a]ppellant's contentions concerning each issue presented for review, with supporting reasons for each contention, and with citations of legal authorities and appropriate references to the portions of the record on which the appellant relies." Failure to comply with the "minimum standards" set forth in Rule 13 constitutes waiver of those issues on appeal. Ramos v. Nichols, 252 Ariz. 519, ¶ 13 (App. 2022); see also Ritchie v. Krasner, 221 Ariz. 288, ¶ 62 (App. 2009).
¶5 Schaults has not made appropriate references to the record in this matter, nor has he meaningfully cited to relevant legal authority. And to the extent Schaults attempts to raise arguments related to the merits of 339 Properties' title, they are beyond the scope of this forcible detainer action. See A.R.S. §§ 12-1171, 12-1173.01; Curtis v. Morris, 186 Ariz. 534, 534-35 (1996) (in forcible detainer action, only issue is right of actual possession without inquiry into merits of title). Although Schaults is unrepresented in this matter, we hold him to the same standard as an attorney, and we may not afford him special leniency. See Flynn v. Campbell, 243 Ariz. 76, ¶ 24 (2017). Because Schaults has not complied with Rule 13(a)(7), he has waived appellate review of all issues in this matter.
Disposition
¶6 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm. As the prevailing party, 339 Properties is entitled to its costs on appeal upon compliance with Rule 21, Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. See A.R.S. § 12-342.