747 P.2d 1211 (Ariz. 1987), CV-86-0360, Morris v. Achen Const. Co., Inc.

Docket Nº:CV-86-0360-PR.
Citation:747 P.2d 1211, 155 Ariz. 512
Opinion Judge:[11] Moeller
Party Name:John P. MORRIS and Barbara D. Morris, husband and wife, Defendants/Counter- Claimants/Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. ACHEN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., an Arizona corporation; Sanders T. Achen and Roxanne M. Achen, husband and wife; Brett J. Hunsinger; Jalma Hunsinger, Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants/Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
Attorney:[7] Gallagher & Kennedy, P.A. by Michael L. Gallagher and Kevin E. O'Malley, Phoenix, for John P. Morris and Barbara D. Morris. [8] Law Offices of Mitchell C. Laird, P.C. by Mitchell C. Laird and Douglas H. Cook, Phoenix, for Brett J. Hunsinger and Jalma Hunsinger. [9] Ronald L. Junck, P.C. by Ro...
Case Date:December 10, 1987
Court:Supreme Court of Arizona
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1211

747 P.2d 1211 (Ariz. 1987)

155 Ariz. 512

John P. MORRIS and Barbara D. Morris, husband and wife, Defendants/Counter- Claimants/Appellants/Cross-Appellees,

v.

ACHEN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., an Arizona corporation; Sanders T. Achen and Roxanne M. Achen, husband and wife; Brett J. Hunsinger; Jalma Hunsinger, Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants/Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

No. CV-86-0360-PR.

Supreme Court of Arizona.

December 10, 1987

In Banc.

Reconsideration Denied Feb. 2, 1988.

Gallagher & Kennedy, P.A. by Michael L. Gallagher and Kevin E. O'Malley, Phoenix, for John P. Morris and Barbara D. Morris.

Law Offices of Mitchell C. Laird, P.C. by Mitchell C. Laird and Douglas H. Cook, Phoenix, for Brett J. Hunsinger and Jalma Hunsinger.

Ronald L. Junck, P.C. by Ronald L. Junck, Phoenix, for Achen Const. Co., Sanders T. Achen and Roxanne M. Achen.

Page 1212

[155 Ariz. 513] MOELLER, Justice.

JURISDICTION

We granted review in this case limited to two issues. The first concerned the propriety of an award of attorneys' fees under A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A). The second concerned the propriety of the language of the trial court's jury instruction on recoupment. Upon full review of the record, we agree with the court of appeals that the language of the recoupment instruction is not a proper subject for appellate review because no proper objection was made in the trial court. Southern Pacific Trans. Co. v. Lueck, 111 Ariz. 560, 535 P.2d 599 (1975). Therefore, this opinion is confined to consideration of the attorneys' fees portion of the judgment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 5(3) and Rule 23, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, 17A A.R.S.

FACTS

The background facts are set forth in the opinion of the court of appeals, 155 Ariz. 507, 747 P.2d 1206 (1986). Since we deal with a single legal issue, no additional statement of facts is necessary. Reduced to the bare essentials, this case and the issue it presents may be posed as follows: A sues B alleging that B fraudulently induced A to enter into a contract with C. B successfully defends against A's fraud claim. Under A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A), may B recover from A the attorneys' fees incurred in the successful defense? We conclude that B cannot; therefore, we reverse the attorneys' fees award.

INAPPLICABILITY OF A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A)

A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A) provides...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP