From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Atchley v. Atchley (In re Estate of Atchley)

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO
Jun 3, 2020
No. 2 CA-CV 2019-0185 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jun. 3, 2020)

Opinion

No. 2 CA-CV 2019-0185

06-03-2020

IN RE THE ESTATE OF FAY MAREE ATCHLEY, DECEASED. MARK A. ATCHLEY, Petitioner/Appellant, v. DANIEL H. ATCHLEY, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF FAY MAREE ATCHLEY, Respondent/Appellee.

COUNSEL Mark A. Atchley, Winkelman In Propria Persona Soderquist Law PLLC, Chandler By Carol A. Soderquist Counsel for Respondent/Appellee


THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 Pinal County
No. PB201800319
The Honorable Robert C. Olson, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL Mark A. Atchley, Winkelman
In Propria Persona Soderquist Law PLLC, Chandler
By Carol A. Soderquist
Counsel for Respondent/Appellee

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Eppich and Judge Espinosa concurred. ECKERSTROM, Judge:

¶1 Mark Atchley appeals from the trial court's September 2019 order settling his late mother's estate. Appellant's complaints relate not only to that order and the hearing that resulted in the order, but also to two prior orders issued by the trial court. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

The prior orders involved the appointment of appellant's brother as personal representative of the estate and the trial court's order allowing Atchley Enterprises, L.L.C. to purchase from the estate a parcel of real property located in Dudleyville, Arizona "for the purpose of allowing [appellant] . . . to reside on the property, for as long as his health allows." --------

Discussion

¶2 Appellant is not represented by counsel. Nevertheless, he is "given the same consideration on appeal as one who has been represented by counsel," and he "is held to the same familiarity with court procedures and the same notice of . . . rules . . . as is expected of a lawyer." Higgins v. Higgins, 194 Ariz. 266, ¶ 12 (App. 1999).

¶3 Appellant's opening brief does not comply with our procedural rules. See Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a) (requirements for opening briefs). Most importantly, appellant's brief lacks a coherent argument regarding the issues 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." Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a)(7)(A). Instead, the opening brief contains only citations to irrelevant provisions of the United States Constitution and no citations to the record. We therefore deem any claims he might have raised waived. See Ritchie v. Krasner, 221 Ariz. 288, ¶ 62 (App. 2009) (appellant waives claims by failing to provide in opening brief significant arguments, supporting authority, and citations to record); see also Boswell v. Fintelmann, 242 Ariz. 52, n.3 (App. 2017) (appellant who "fails to develop and support his conclusory arguments . . . waives them").

¶4 Moreover, appellant has failed to provide transcripts of any of the three hearings pertinent to this appeal. See Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 11(c)(1)(B) ("If the appellant will contend on appeal that a judgment, finding or conclusion, is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the evidence, the appellant must include in the record transcripts of all proceedings containing evidence relevant to that judgment, finding or conclusion."). In the absence of such transcripts, we presume that whatever occurred at the hearings supported the trial court's findings and conclusions. See Baker v. Baker, 183 Ariz. 70, 73 (App. 1995) ("A party is responsible for making certain the record on appeal contains all transcripts or other documents necessary for us to consider the issues raised on appeal," and "[w]hen a party fails to include necessary items, we assume they would support the court's findings and conclusions.").

Disposition

¶5 We therefore affirm the order of the trial court.


Summaries of

Atchley v. Atchley (In re Estate of Atchley)

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO
Jun 3, 2020
No. 2 CA-CV 2019-0185 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jun. 3, 2020)
Case details for

Atchley v. Atchley (In re Estate of Atchley)

Case Details

Full title:IN RE THE ESTATE OF FAY MAREE ATCHLEY, DECEASED. MARK A. ATCHLEY…

Court:ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO

Date published: Jun 3, 2020

Citations

No. 2 CA-CV 2019-0185 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jun. 3, 2020)