Opinion
No. 2 CA-CV 2017-0131-FC
12-29-2017
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF MARIA AVILA, Petitioner/Appellant, and LOUIE ALEXANDER AVILA SEVILLA, Respondent/Appellee.
COUNSEL Maria Avila, Sahuarita In Propria Persona Pahl & Associates, Tucson By Danette R. Pahl 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 Pima County
No. D20161313
The Honorable Deborah Bernini, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL Maria Avila, Sahuarita
In Propria Persona Pahl & Associates, Tucson
By Danette R. Pahl
Counsel for Respondent/Appellee
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Chief Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Vásquez and Judge Eppich concurred. ECKERSTROM, Chief Judge:
¶1 Petitioner Maria Avila appeals from the trial court's judgment in this marital dissolution action. Because Avila has failed to comply with the Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, we deem her claims waived and affirm the judgment.
¶2 On appeal, Avila challenges several portions of the trial court's ruling, including its denial of her request for spousal maintenance, the division of marital property and debt, and child support. However, she has failed to develop any legal argument or to provide appropriate citations to the record. See Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a)(6), (7)(A), (B); Ritchie v. Krasner, 221 Ariz. 288, ¶ 62 (App. 2009) ("Opening briefs must present and address significant arguments, supported by authority that set forth the appellant's position on the issue in question."). We acknowledge Avila is not represented by counsel. Nevertheless, "a party who conducts a case without an attorney is entitled to no more consideration from the court than a party represented by counsel, and is held to the same standards expected of a lawyer." Kelly v. NationsBanc Mortg. Corp., 199 Ariz. 284, ¶ 16 (App. 2000). Accordingly, we deem Avila's claims waived. See Rice v. Brakel, 233 Ariz. 140, ¶ 28 (App. 2013) (party that fails to "cite[] . . . relevant portions of the record [and] address[] the basis of the [trial] court's decision" waives claim on appeal).
To the extent Avila challenges the facts found by the trial court, we will not disturb the facts found by that court unless they are clearly erroneous, which Avila has not demonstrated. See Nia v. Nia, 242 Ariz. 419, ¶ 7 (App. 2017). To the extent she alleges circumstances have changed since the entry of the trial court's order, that is a question to be considered by the trial court in the first instance. See A.R.S. § 25-327; Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 91. --------
¶3 We affirm the judgment of the trial court.