Cook Family Tr. v. McAllister

• Decision Date: 17 February 2022
• Docket Number: 1 CA-CV 21-0162
• Court: Arizona Court of Appeals
• Parties: COOK FAMILY TRUST, ROBERT COOK, trustee and individually, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. SUZANNE MCALLISTER, as trustee of the McAllister Family Trust, Defendant/Appellee.

COOK FAMILY TRUST, ROBERT COOK, trustee and individually, Plaintiffs/Appellants,
v.
SUZANNE MCALLISTER, as trustee of the McAllister Family Trust, Defendant/Appellee.

No. 1 CA-CV 21-0162

Court of Appeals of Arizona, First Division

February 17, 2022

Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County No. P1300CV201801025 The Honorable Michael P. McGill, Judge

Robert Cook, Prescott Plaintiff/Appellant

Law Office of Russell S. Duerksen, Chino Valley By Russell S. Duerksen Counsel for Defendant/Appellee

1

Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Brian Y. Furuya and Judge Jennifer M. Perkins joined.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

WEINZWEIG, JUDGE

¶1 Robert Cook, trustee of the Cook Family Trust, appeals the superior court's release of his supersedeas bond to Suzanne McAllister, trustee of the McAllister Family Trust. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 McAllister owned a vacant home in Yavapai County. Cook lived in the residence for about six years without McAllister's knowledge or permission before suing to quiet title under the doctrine of adverse possession. After a bench trial, the superior court found that Cook did not prove his adverse possession claim and entered final judgment for McAllister, quieting title in her favor and awarding $1, 063.62 in costs.

¶3 Cook timely noticed an appeal from the final judgment. He also moved the superior court to stay enforcement of the judgment and set a supersedeas bond. The court twice scheduled Cook's motion for oral argument. Cook twice failed to appear. Even so, the court granted Cook's motion, ordering him to post two bonds "during the pendency of [his] appeal," including (1) a $1, 063.62 bond "to stay execution of the monetary judgment," and, assuming he continued living in McAllister's home, (2) "an additional bond of $1, 400 per month" as fair market rental value. Cook unsuccessfully moved to alter or amend the bonds. He then posted the first bond and paid the first month's rent, but he made no payments in 9 of 12 months overall.

¶4 After all of that, Cook never filed an opening brief in his appeal. And so, we dismissed the appeal and our supreme court denied review. McAllister moved the superior court to release Cook's bonds, which the court did, ruling the bonds were no longer required because Cook lost his appeal.

¶5 Cook appealed that ruling to...