Opinion
2 CA-CV 2024-0083-FC
10-23-2024
Michael Espinoza, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Miriam Covarrubias-Moreno, Respondent/Appellant.
Cantor Law Group PLLC, Phoenix By Amanda Szpakowski Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee Miriam Covarrubias-Moreno, Phoenix In Propria Persona
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. FC2022006570 The Honorable Robert Brooks, Judge The Honorable Suzanne M. Nicholls, Judge
Cantor Law Group PLLC, Phoenix By Amanda Szpakowski Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee
Miriam Covarrubias-Moreno, Phoenix In Propria Persona
Judge Vasquez authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge O'Neil and Judge Kelly concurred.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
VASQUEZ, JUDGE
¶1 In this domestic-relations action, Miriam Covarrubias-Moreno ("Mother") appeals from the trial court's order establishing legal decision-making, parenting time, and child support, as well as the court's awards of attorney fees in favor of Michael Espinoza ("Father"). Because Mother has failed to comply with the Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, we affirm.
Factual and Procedural Background
¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court's findings and orders. Hefner v. Hefner, 248 Ariz. 54, n.2 (App. 2019). The parties were never married and have one minor child in common. Several months before their daughter's birth, Mother stopped communicating with Father. Mother did not provide Father with updates about her pregnancy or the baby's health, did not respond to Father's requests for information or ultrasound photos from doctor appointments, and prevented Father from being present at their daughter's birth by refusing to inform him of her due date or the delivery hospital.
¶3 Father filed a petition to establish paternity in October 2022. Mother gave birth to the parties' daughter in December 2022. In January 2023, after learning about the child's birth, Father filed a petition to establish decision-making, parenting time, and child support and a motion for temporary orders for the same. After a hearing in March 2023, the trial court issued temporary orders awarding joint legal decision-making authority and equal parenting time. The court also entered a child support award in favor of Mother, gave Father makeup parenting time, and partially granted Father's request for an award of attorney fees under A.R.S. § 25-324.
In granting Father's request for attorney fees, the trial court found that "Mother [had] acted unreasonably by failing to allow Father access to the Child and being unresponsive to Father's repeated attempts at communication . . ., thereby causing the need for litigation and increasing the costs thereof." Mother attempted to appeal from the court's temporary orders on the issue of attorney fees, but we dismissed that appeal as untimely.
¶4 A one-day trial was held in November 2023, after which the trial court issued orders for legal decision-making, parenting time, and child support. The court concluded it was in the child's best interest for the parties to maintain joint legal decision-making authority under A.R.S. § 25-401(2) and equal parenting time on a mutually agreeable schedule, pursuant to Rule 69, Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. The court confirmed a child support award, taking into account Father's request that he be credited for the cost of daycare. The court found that Mother had "acted unreasonably in the litigation," and therefore granted Father's second request for attorney fees and costs under § 25-324(A).
¶5 In January 2024, the trial court issued its final ruling under Rule 78(c), Ariz. R. Fam. Law P., awarding Father his attorney fees. This appeal followed. We have jurisdiction under A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1) and 12-2101(A)(1).
Discussion
I. Waiver
¶6 Mother asserts numerous claims in her opening brief. She contends the trial court erred by: (1) "awarding Father attorney fees"; (2) calculating its child support award "with[out] regard to child care credit"; (3) "denying Mother the right of first refusal for child care"; (4) "awarding parenting time to Father for a period prior to establishing paternity" and determining that Father was not "responsible for child support for the time given"; (5) the "denial, refusal, and acknowledgment of evidence provided by Mother"; (6) "allowing substantial leading questions on direct examination and/or giving weight to the testimony"; and (7) "sanctioning [Mother] with attorney fees for opposing [Father's] attempt to craft his own propounded discovery to himself and answer for himself."
¶7 Additionally, Mother poses individual "Legal Issue[s]" at various points throughout her brief. These additional allegations include, in part, that the trial court erred by: granting Father "exclusive daycare decision-making"; "demonstrating bias in its judgment" because Father is a police officer; "denying [Mother's] request to appear telephonically [at] or to continue" various hearings while she was "bedridden recovering from major surgery, thereby potentially violating [Mother's] right to due process and a fair trial"; and "considering [Father's] allegations of harassment" against her "without requiring evidence to support such claims."
¶8 Because Mother's opening brief fails to comply with our procedural rules, however, she has waived review of her arguments on appeal. See Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a). Her brief does not contain appropriate section headings, id., a compliant table of contents, Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a)(1), a table of citations, Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a)(2), or a compliant statement of the case or facts, Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a)(4), (5). Mother does not state her "precise relief sought," Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a)(9), nor do any of her arguments contain "appropriate references to the portions of the record on which [she] relies" or the applicable standard of appellate review for the issues raised on appeal, Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a)(7).
¶9 Most critically, with the exception of a recitation of Rule 611, Ariz. R. Evid., Mother fails to cite any legal authority to support her positions on appeal. Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a)(7)(A). Merely mentioning an issue is insufficient to develop the argument on appeal, see Polanco v. Indus. Comm'n, 214 Ariz. 489, n.2 (App. 2007), and "[i]t is not incumbent upon the court to develop an argument for a party," Ace Auto. Prods., Inc. v. Van Duyne, 156 Ariz. 140, 143 (App. 1987). Despite Mother's status as a self-represented litigant, we hold her to the same standards as an attorney, see Higgins v. Higgins, 194 Ariz. 266, ¶ 12 (App. 1999). We therefore deem her arguments waived. See J.W. v. Dep't of Child Safety, 252 Ariz. 184, ¶ 11 (App. 2021) ("Arguments that are unsupported by legal authority and adequate citation to the record are waived.").
II. Attorney Fees on Appeal
¶10 Father requests attorney fees and costs on appeal pursuant to Rule 21, Ariz. R. Civ. App. P., and A.R.S. §§ 25-324 and 12-349. Section 12-349 requires a court to assess reasonable attorney fees against a party if it brings or defends a claim "without substantial justification" or "solely or primarily for delay or harassment." A claim or defense is without substantial justification if it "is groundless and is not made in good faith." § 12-349(F).
¶11 Mother has presented no rational argument based on the evidence or law, rendering her claims groundless. Her claims are largely conclusory statements that essentially ask this court to reweigh the evidence, which is something we will not do. See Hurd v. Hurd, 223 Ariz. 48, ¶ 16 (App. 2009). We therefore grant Father's request for reasonable attorney fees on appeal under § 12-349(A)(1). And as the prevailing party, we award Father his costs on appeal upon his compliance with Rule 21. See A.R.S. § 12-341.
Because we award Father's attorney fees under § 12-349, we do not address whether an award of fees under § 25-324 is appropriate.
¶12 Father also requests sanctions against Mother, pursuant to Rule 25, Ariz. R. Civ. App. P., "to discourage similar conduct in the future." Rule 25 allows a court to impose sanctions "if it determines that an appeal or a motion is frivolous, or it was filed solely for the purpose of delay." Because we use "great reservation" when exercising our authority to impose sanctions under Rule 25, we deny Father's request. See Ariz. Tax Rsch. Ass'n, 163 Ariz. 255, 257 (1989).
Disposition
¶13 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's ruling.