Opinion
No. 1 CA-CV 19-0059
02-27-2020
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. RANDOLPH D. OAKMAN, Defendant/Appellant.
COUNSEL Randolph D. Oakman, Surprise Defendant/Appellant Aldridge/Pite LLP, Phoenix By Janet M. Spears Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CV2018-006645
The Honorable David W. Garbarino, Judge Pro Tempore
AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART
COUNSEL Randolph D. Oakman, Surprise
Defendant/Appellant Aldridge/Pite LLP, Phoenix
By Janet M. Spears
Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Chief Judge Peter B. Swann delivered the decision of the Court, in which Acting Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig and Judge David B. Gass joined. SWANN, Judge:
¶1 Randolph Oakman appeals from the trial court's ruling finding him guilty of forcible detainer and awarding Federal National Mortgage Association ("FNMA") possession of the property. For the following reasons, we affirm in part and reverse in part.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 FNMA purchased property in Surprise, Arizona. When FNMA purchased the property, Oakman lived in the residence. In June 2018, FNMA demanded that Oakman deliver possession of the property to it, but Oakman refused. FNMA then filed a forcible detainer action in October 2018. Oakman moved to dismiss the forcible detainer action for improper service under the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. The trial court denied Oakman's motion to dismiss and denied his demand for a jury trial as untimely.
¶3 After a bench trial, the trial court found Oakman guilty of forcible detainer. Oakman moved to stay the judgment to pursue his appeal, moved for the court to reconsider its ruling, and filed a timely notice of appeal. The trial court granted Oakman's motion to stay judgment while he prosecuted his appeal but declined to rule on the motion to reconsider because the notice of appeal divested the trial court of jurisdiction.
¶4 Oakman then moved to stay the appeal and re-vest jurisdiction in the trial court so it could rule on his motion to reconsider. We granted Oakman's motion, stating that the appeal would automatically re-vest with this Court on April 29, 2019 and Oakman's opening brief must be filed by May 29, 2019. After the trial court was re-vested with jurisdiction, Oakman moved to dismiss the forcible detainer action under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 60. The trial court denied both Oakman's motion to reconsider and his motion to dismiss under Rule 60. In May 2019, Oakman moved to extend the opening brief deadline, which this Court granted, extending the deadline to June 28, 2019.
¶5 In February 2019, while this action was pending, Li & Li Investment, LLC ("Li & Li") purchased the property from FNMA and, without knowledge of the stay, attempted to evict Oakman by filing a separate forcible detainer action. The trial court in that case issued a Writ of Restitution evicting Oakman from the property. Oakman moved for reconsideration citing the stay of judgment in this case. The trial court granted Oakman's motion, vacating the eviction action as a collateral attack on this case. In June 2019, Li & Li moved to intervene and lift the stay in this case because Oakman breached the stay requirements, which consisted of paying $1,096 for prorated rent for December 2018 and January 2019, paying $1,000 per month to the Clerk of the Court for the property's fair rental value beginning in February 2019, and prosecuting his appeal to its conclusion.
¶6 The trial court granted Li & Li's motion to intervene as well as its motion to lift the stay because Oakman failed to make the required rental payments from March to June 2019. In June 2019, the trial court issued a Writ of Restitution ordering Oakman's removal from the property. Oakman then filed his opening brief on July 1, 2019.
Oakman's opening brief was untimely, but we exercise our discretion to accept the untimely opening brief and consider Oakman's arguments on appeal. --------
DISCUSSION
¶7 Oakman argues that FNMA violated the trial court's orders by pursuing his eviction in a separate action despite the stay of judgment. But Li & Li, not FNMA, attempted to evict Oakman in a separate forcible detainer action. Li & Li was unaware of the stay in this case. Additionally, the trial court in that case vacated the eviction because of the stay in this case, so Oakman was not prejudiced.
¶8 The trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant Li & Li's motion to intervene, lift the stay of judgment, and issue a Writ of Restitution. Once a notice of appeal is filed, the trial court loses jurisdiction of "each and every matter connected with the case, except in furtherance of the appeal." In re Marriage of Johnson and Gravino, 231 Ariz. 228, 230 ¶ 6 (App. 2012). Though Oakman moved to re-vest jurisdiction in the trial court, jurisdiction automatically re-vested with this Court on April 29, 2019. As a result, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on Li & Li's motions. We therefore vacate the trial court's ruling granting Li & Li's motion to intervene, lifting the stay of judgment, and issuing a Writ of Restitution.
¶9 Oakman next argues that FNMA did not properly serve him, did not follow the rules of procedure for eviction actions, and that its counsel had a vendetta against him. Oakman fails to develop his arguments and fails to cite to any supporting evidence or authority. Therefore, his arguments are waived. See Ritchie v. Krasner, 221 Ariz. 288, 305 ¶ 62 (App. 2009) (failure to present and address arguments, supported by authority can constitute abandonment and waiver of the claim). Oakman also waives his arguments that he has newly discovered evidence, that FNMA colluded with Li & Li, and that FNMA filed meritless motions because he fails to develop those arguments or identify newly discovered evidence to support his assertions. See id. Finally, Oakman waives his argument that FNMA falsely claimed to purchase the property at foreclosure because he fails to develop his argument or cite supporting evidence. See id.
CONCLUSION
¶10 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's finding that Oakman was guilty of forcible detainer but reverse its granting of Li & Li's motion to intervene, its order lifting the stay of judgment, and its order issuing a Writ of Restitution.