Opinion
2 CA-CV 2022-0124
07-26-2023
In re the Estate of Mildred Kathleen Smith, Deceased v. Todd Campbell, Respondent/Appellee. Bradley Campbell, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Mildred Kathleen Smith, Petitioner/Appellant,
Bradley Campbell, Tucson In Propria Persona T.S. Hartzell, Tucson Counsel for Respondent/Appellee
NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 28(a)(1), (f).
Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. PB20170275 The Honorable Kenneth Lee, Judge AFFIRMED
Bradley Campbell, Tucson In Propria Persona
T.S. Hartzell, Tucson Counsel for Respondent/Appellee
Vice Chief Judge Staring authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Sklar and Judge O'Neil concurred.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
STARING, Vice Chief Judge
¶1 In this probate matter involving the estate of Mildred Kathleen Smith, her son, Bradley Campbell, appeals from the superior court's judgment in favor of his brother, Todd Campbell. For the following reasons, we affirm the court's judgment.
Facts and Procedural Background
¶2 In January 2017, Smith died intestate, with her two sons as her sole heirs. In March, Bradley initiated probate proceedings, for which the superior court appointed him the personal representative of the estate. In September 2020, Bradley filed a closing statement attesting he had finished administering and distributing all assets of the estate, including a piece of real property located in Tucson. The estate was closed in October 2021.
¶3 In November 2021, Bradley filed a petition to reopen the estate to allow him "to finalize/close on the sale of real property distributed to him through the estate," which the superior court granted in January 2022. The court also reappointed Bradley as the personal representative of Smith's estate and authorized him to sell the property but ordered that the "net proceeds from the sale . . . be deposited into an estate checking account," "remain in that account," and "not be distributed until further order of the Court." The court set a hearing for February 14 and ordered Bradley to provide "a copy of the escrow settlement sheet from the sale of the property." The court further stated Bradley was entitled to reimbursement for expenses he had incurred in "the rehabilitation of the property for purposes of sale" and ordered him to "prepare a list" of any claims against Todd.
¶4 Only Todd appeared at the February 14 hearing, and the superior court continued the hearing to March 2. On March 2, Bradley again failed to appear, and the court ordered him to appear in person for a show-cause hearing on March 29, warning that if he was not present, it would issue a "fiduciary arrest warrant." Bradley subsequently moved to continue the hearing, and the court granted the motion, resetting the hearing for May 16.
¶5 After Bradley failed to appear at the show-cause hearing, the superior court held him in contempt "for failure to appear and failure to respond to the Court." The court ordered that he was no longer entitled to "reimbursements for out-of-pocket expenses incurred as the Personal Representative," "Personal Representative fees," or "claims of damages to the property against Todd." It also issued a warrant for Bradley's arrest. Additionally, after finding that Todd was "entitled to half of the net proceeds from the sale of the home," the court ordered Bradley to appear for a hearing to purge himself of contempt by bringing "the settlement sheet from the sale of the home" and writing a check to Todd for those proceeds.
¶6 Bradley appeared at the hearing but failed to bring the settlement sheet. The superior court ordered him to bring the sheet to the next hearing, which was scheduled for June 27, and warned that if he failed to do so, he would be "taken into custody." At the June hearing, Bradley provided the settlement sheet, and the court quashed the warrant for his arrest.
The net proceeds from the sale of the property were $380,087.48.
¶7 The superior court entered a final judgment for Todd in "the sum of $190,043.74" and against Bradley, "both individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate." This appeal followed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1) and 12-2101(A)(1), (9).
Discussion
¶8 Bradley argues the superior court's "order to dismiss, the already approved, Final Accounting documentation and documentation of theft of the estate by . . . Todd . . . [wa]s unreasonable and unjust." He asks us "to review the hearings and documentation regarding this case and reverse [the court]'s decision based on the facts and documentation provided."
Contrary to Bradley's assertion, the court's judgment did not contain an order of dismissal.
¶9 Bradley's opening brief fails to comply with the rules set forth in Rule 13(a), Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. He fails to make arguments with "supporting reasons for each contention, and with citations of legal authorities and appropriate references to the portions of the record on which [he] relies." Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a)(7)(A). Thus, Bradley has waived his arguments on appeal. See Ritchie v. Krasner, 221 Ariz. 288, ¶ 62 (App. 2009) (appellant waives claims by failing to "present and address significant arguments, supported by authority that set forth the appellant's position on the issue in question").
Disposition
¶10 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm. As the prevailing party on appeal, Todd is entitled to his costs upon compliance with Rule 21, Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. See A.R.S. § 12-341.