Opinion
No. 2 CA-CV 2018-0193-FC
05-29-2019
GARRETT MICHAEL NEWTON, Petitioner/Appellee, v. ASHLEY MARIE REEDER, Respondent/Appellant.
COUNSEL The McCarthy Law Firm, Tucson By Randi L. Burnett Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee Ashley Reeder, Tucson In Propria Persona
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. SP20140456
The Honorable Cathleen Linn, Judge Pro Tempore
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL The McCarthy Law Firm, Tucson
By Randi L. Burnett
Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee Ashley Reeder, Tucson
In Propria Persona
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Eppich authored the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Eckerstrom and Judge Espinosa concurred. EPPICH, Presiding Judge:
¶1 Ashley Reeder appeals the trial court's order granting attorney fees to Garrett Newton, contending she "should not have to pay" Newton's attorney fees because "he chose to involve his attorney" in a dispute over who was entitled to claim their daughter for a child tax credit. We affirm.
Although Reeder is self-represented, a self-represented civil litigant "is given the same consideration on appeal as one who has been represented by counsel," and "is held to the same familiarity with court procedures and the same notice of statutes, rules, and legal principles as is expected of a lawyer." Higgins v. Higgins, 194 Ariz. 266, ¶ 12 (App. 1999). --------
Factual and Procedural Background
¶2 Reeder and Newton are the parents of five-year-old A.N. In May 2018, Newton filed a petition for contempt in superior court alleging Reeder had failed to comply with a previously issued child support order by claiming A.N. as a dependent on her 2017 tax return. After a hearing, the trial court concluded Reeder had failed to comply with "a clear court order" and entered a judgment awarding Newton attorney fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 25-324. Reeder timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(1).
Discussion
¶3 On appeal, Reeder's opening brief does not contain legal argument, legal authority, citations to the record, or the applicable standard of review as required by Rule 13(a), Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. We therefore consider any arguments waived, and we will not address them. See Ritchie v. Krasner, 221 Ariz. 288, ¶ 62 (App. 2009) (insufficient argument on appeal may constitute abandonment and waiver of claim).
¶4 Newton requests attorney fees incurred on appeal under § 25-324, which allows the court to award attorney fees "after considering the financial resources of both parties and the reasonableness of the positions each party has taken throughout the proceedings." While the record does not support a disparity in the parties' financial resources, Reeder's position here is unreasonable: her brief contains no legal argument or authority and does not meaningfully address the trial court's conclusion that she had failed to comply with a court order. We therefore grant Newton's request for attorney fees and award him his costs upon compliance with Rule 21, Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. See A.R.S. §§ 25-324 (fees), 12-341 (costs).
Disposition
¶5 We affirm the trial court's judgment.