Boyilla v. Boyilla
| Decision Date | 03 August 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 1 CA-CV 16-0546 FC,1 CA-CV 16-0546 FC |
| Parties | In re the Matter of: SAILAJA BOYILLA, Petitioner/Appellant, v. NANDA KISHORE BOYILLA, Respondent/Appellee. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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
The Honorable Jennifer C. Ryan-Touhill, Judge
AFFIRMED
Sailaja Boyilla, Scottsdale
Berkshire Law Office, PLLC, Phoenix
By Keith Berkshire, Max Mahoney
Counsel for Respondent/Appellee
MEMORANDUM DECISIONPresiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Judge Randall M. Howe joined.
¶1 Sailaja Boyilla ("Wife") appeals the family court's decree of dissolution, challenging discovery sanctions imposed before trial, the decree itself, and subsequent court orders denying her motion for new trial and awarding attorneys' fees to Nanda Kishore Boyilla ("Husband"). For the following reasons, we affirm.
¶2 In June 2015, Wife petitioned for legal separation, and Husband counter-petitioned, seeking dissolution of their nineteen-year marriage. Before trial, the parties reached an agreement pursuant to Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure ("Rule") 69, in which, among other things, the parties agreed Wife would "participate in a private vocational evaluation to be fully paid for by [Husband]."
¶3 In December 2015, Husband moved to compel Wife to schedule a vocational evaluation with the evaluator he retained. After receiving no response from Wife, the family court granted the motion to compel, ordered Wife to complete the evaluation by February 8, 2016, and granted Husband's related attorneys' fees. When Wife again failed to comply, Husband moved for sanctions pursuant to Rule 65(B). Wife's response to the motion for sanctions claimed, for the first time, that although she did not meet with Husband's evaluator, she had completed a vocational evaluation on November 4, 2015, at the Maricopa County Skills Center. Her response did not include the results of that evaluation.
¶4 Husband moved for discovery sanctions again, alleging that Wife had failed to respond to interrogatories pertaining to spousal maintenance. Husband asked the court to compel a response or, if Wife did not timely respond, to strike Wife's claim for spousal maintenance pursuant to Rule 65(B)(2)(a) and (c). Husband also requested an award of relatedattorneys' fees. Wife filed a handwritten "explanation" stating she was having trouble getting her attorney to cooperate and communicate.
¶5 Husband also filed a Rule 65(C) motion seeking to preclude any evidence not previously disclosed, and alleging that Wife had only disclosed minimal information, much of which related to joint accounts or tax returns already in Husband's possession. Husband again requested attorneys' fees related to the motion.
¶6 Wife's attorney moved to withdraw on April 5, 2016, and at the same time, moved to continue the April 26 trial date. On April 12, the family court declined to continue the trial, finding no good cause, and in a minute entry dated April 18, the court granted Wife's attorney's motion to withdraw. However, this order was not filed until April 22, 2016.
¶7 On April 12, 2016, the family court ruled on Husband's pending requests for sanctions in three separate orders, each signed "as a formal written Order of the Court, pursuant to ARFLP 78(B)." As a sanction for failing to complete the vocational evaluation as ordered, the court precluded Wife's claim for spousal maintenance pursuant to Rule 65(B)(2)(b) and (c), and ordered Wife to pay all of Husband's attorneys' fees related to the vocational evaluation issue.
¶8 The family court also granted Husband's second motion for sanctions regarding Wife's failure to respond to interrogatories. The court gave Wife until April 11, 2016, to respond to Husband's interrogatories, or Wife would be barred from asserting claims for separate property, waste of marital assets, or a valuation of assets different than Husband's valuation. Based upon Wife's failure to respond, the court also accepted as fact that Wife had $70,000 in gold in a safe deposit box to which Husband did not have access, and awarded attorneys' fees to Husband related to Wife's failure to comply with this discovery order. Finally, the court granted Husband's motion to preclude any evidence other than the six items Wife had already disclosed.
¶9 Wife's attorney appeared at trial, unaware the family court had granted his motion to withdraw. The court denied Wife's requests to continue the trial and reconsider the sanctions. After Wife's attorney was excused, Wife proceeded on her own behalf. Soon after trial, but before the decree was entered, Wife retained new counsel and moved for a new trial, arguing that she was denied a fair trial when her attorney was dismissed on the day of trial without prior notice, and she again objected to the sanctions imposed before trial.
¶10 Consistent with the prior sanctions, the dissolution decree did not award spousal maintenance and attributed $70,000 worth of gold to Wife in the property allocation. The child support order was based upon Husband's full-time employment and did not include any income Husband earned as a realtor. In a later, signed order, the family court awarded Husband $7,881 in attorneys' fees related, in part, to Wife's failure to provide interrogatory responses and participate in the vocational evaluation. In yet another signed order, the court denied Wife's motion for new trial, objection to the decree, and motion to stay sale of the residence. Wife then filed a notice of appeal from the decree and these post-decree orders.
¶11 Husband argues the notice of appeal was not filed within thirty days from the entry of the three sanctions orders containing Rule 78(B) language, as required by Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure ("ARCAP") 9(a). Husband also contends Wife filed an untimely motion for new trial from the sanctions orders, which, therefore, did not extend the time to file a notice of appeal from the sanctions orders.
¶12 The sanctions orders were filed April 12, 2016, making a motion for new trial due April 27, 2016. See Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 83(D)(1) (). Wife's motion for new trial was not filed until May 13, 2016. Although Wife did not respond to this argument, this court has an independent duty to examine whether it has jurisdiction over matters on appeal. Ghadimi v. Soraya, 230 Ariz. 621, 622, ¶ 7, 285 P.3d 969, 970 (App. 2012).
¶13 Rule 78(B) is analogous to Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure ("Civil Rule") 54. Both rules provide that the court may direct entry of final judgment in an action presenting more than one claim only upon an express determination that no just reason for delay exists. Compare Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 78(B), with Ariz. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Therefore, cases interpreting Civil Rule 54(b) are applicable to Rule 78(B). See Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 1, cmt. Whether the family court appropriately certified a judgment as final and appealable under Rule 78(B) is a question we review de novo. Robinson v. Kay, 225 Ariz. 191, 192, ¶ 4, 236 P.3d 418, 419 (App. 2010) (citing Davis v. Cessna Aircraft Corp., 168 Ariz. 301, 304, 812 P.2d 1119, 1122 (App. 1991)).
¶14 Like Civil Rule 54(b), Rule 78(B) provides an exception to the public policy against deciding cases in a piecemeal fashion. See id. (citing Musa v. Adrian, 130 Ariz. 311, 312, 636 P.2d 89, 90 (1981)). The court may certify a judgment as final and appealable when the judgment disposes of one or more claims in the action. See Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 78(B). In Bollermann v. Nowlis, 234 Ariz. 340, 342, ¶ 12, 322 P.3d 157, 159 (2014), our supreme court held that a post-decree order resolving all issues except the request for attorneys' fees was not final because the order did not include a ruling on attorneys' fees or certify the order as final under Rule 78(B). Viewed in isolation, the court's language could be interpreted to imply that a ruling can be made final simply by the inclusion of Rule 78(B) language, even though other issues remain unresolved. See also Natale v. Natale, 234 Ariz. 507, 510, ¶ 11, 323 P.3d 1158, 1161 (App. 2014) ; In re Marriage of Kassa, 231 Ariz. 592, 594, ¶ 6, 299 P.3d 1290, 1292 (App. 2013) ().
¶15 However, the inclusion of Rule 78(B) language alone does not make a judgment final and appealable; "the certification must also be substantively warranted." Sw. Gas Corp. v. Irwin ex rel. Cty. of Cochise, 229 Ariz. 198, 202, ¶ 12, 273 P.3d 650, 654 (App. 2012) (citing Musa, 130 Ariz. at 313, 636 P.2d at 91). Rule 78(B) certification is appropriate only where the judgment disposes of a separate claim. See Robinson, 225 Ariz. at 192, ¶ 4, 236 P.3d at 419. A separate claim is one in which "no appellate court would have to decide the same issues more than once even if there are subsequent appeals." Sw. Gas, 229 Ariz. at 202, ¶ 12, 273 P.3d at 654 (citations and brackets omitted).
¶16 In dissolution cases, the issues of property allocation, spousal maintenance, and child support are intertwined and not discrete issues. To determine an appropriate spousal maintenance award, the court must first consider the property allocated to the parties. See ...
To continue reading
Request your trial