Magic Ranch Estates Homeowners Ass'n v. Huffman, 2 CA-CV 2018-0142

Decision Date22 November 2019
Docket NumberNo. 2 CA-CV 2018-0142,2 CA-CV 2018-0142
PartiesMAGIC RANCH ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, AN ARIZONA NON-PROFIT CORPORATION, Plaintiff/Counterdefendant/Appellee, v. EVERETT HUFFMAN, AN UNMARRIED MAN, Defendant/Counterclaimant/Appellant.
CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 Pinal County

No. CV201501738

The Honorable Stephen F. McCarville, Judge

The Honorable Kevin D. White, Judge

The Honorable Robert Carter Olson, Judge

The Honorable Joseph R. Georgini, Judge

AFFIRMED IN PART; APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART

COUNSEL
Hill, Hall & DeCiancio PLC, Phoenix

By R. Corey Hill, Ginette M. Hill, and Christopher Robbins

Counsel for Plaintiff/Counterdefendant/Appellee

Everett Huffman, Florence

In Propria Persona

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Chief Judge Vásquez authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Staring and Judge Brearcliffe concurred.

VÁSQUEZ, Chief Judge:

¶1 In this breach-of-contract action brought by Magic Ranch Estates Homeowners Association, homeowner Everett Huffman appeals the trial court's various rulings, including the denial of his motion for summary judgment and the award of attorney fees and costs to Magic Ranch.1 For the reasons stated below, we affirm in part and dismiss for lack of jurisdiction in part.

Facts and Procedural Background

¶2 In September 2015, Magic Ranch filed a civil action against Huffman, asserting a breach-of-contract claim and requesting injunctive relief based on Huffman's alleged violations of the association's "Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions" ("CC&Rs"). Specifically, Magic Ranch alleged that Huffman had failed to properly store his car, failed to clean oil stains on his driveway, refused to repaint his home, and inappropriately installed a "makeshift electrical device" on his roof. In January 2016, Huffman filed an answer and counterclaim, denying the allegations in the complaint and alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress by Magic Ranch. He claimed, in part, that Magic Ranch interfered with his enjoyment of his property when it encouraged another person to run for the HOA board of directors. In reply, Magic Ranch noted Huffman's answer and counterclaim were not verified, and argued it was thus "entitled to judgment as a matter of law," and further requested attorney fees pursuant to Rule 11(c), Ariz. R. Civ. P., and A.R.S. § 12-349.

¶3 At an evidentiary hearing in April 2016, on the association's request for a preliminary injunction, the trial court addressed the breach-of-contract claims, finding Huffman's house needed to be repainted, he was repairing his vehicle in the driveway, and his driveway was stained, inviolation of the CC&Rs. The court also found Magic Ranch had failed to provide Huffman notice to remove the electrical device from his home and would need to provide notice before any enforcement action could be taken. The court ordered Huffman to remove his vehicle from the driveway of his residence and to clean the stains on his driveway. After the court's ruling, Magic Ranch filed an application and affidavit for attorney fees, as well as a motion to dismiss Huffman's counterclaim. Huffman objected to both. In May 2016, the court heard oral argument only on the issue of attorney fees, which it subsequently granted.

¶4 Huffman appealed the trial court's April and May 2016 injunction and attorney fees rulings. He also filed an "Affidavit of Prejudice" in the court against the assigned judge, Judge McCarville, which the court treated as a request for change of judge for cause. Huffman's request for change of judge was denied by Judge White, who referred the case back to Judge McCarville.2 Huffman's appeal was dismissed by this court because there was no final judgment as defined by Rule 54(a), Ariz. R. Civ. P., and we explained that the trial court's Rule 54(b) certification of the May 2016 hearing was improper.

¶5 In October 2016, Magic Ranch filed a motion for partial summary judgment concerning the penalty assessments for Huffman's violations, attorney fees, and costs related to the breach of contract claims and request for injunctive relief. Huffman responded that summary judgment was improper because "many" material factual issues remain. In December 2016, the trial court granted, in part, Magic Ranch's motion for partial summary judgment, and later resolved the outstanding penalty-assessment issue in a March 2017 partial final order.

¶6 Additionally, in February 2017, the trial court granted, in part, Magic Ranch's motion to dismiss Huffman's counterclaim. The court dismissed his claims relating to the CC&R violations alleged by Magic Ranch. But the court granted Huffman leave to amend his counterclaim as it related to his remaining allegations. In October 2017, after reviewing Huffman's amended counterclaim, the court granted Magic Ranch's motion to dismiss. It ruled the amended counterclaim generally was procedurallydeficient, "improperly interject[ed] completely new factual allegations," and "fail[ed] to state an actionable claim."

¶7 In December 2017, Huffman filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging Magic Ranch had failed to notify a board member when it "file[d] this suit against [him]," and to follow its written policy and A.R.S. § 33-1803 for providing Huffman with a hearing as required by the CC&Rs. The trial court issued its under-advisement ruling, denying Huffman's motion for summary judgment, granting Magic Ranch attorney fees and costs, and finding all other matters moot. This appeal followed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1) and 12-2101(A)(1).

Breach-of-Contract Claims

¶8 Huffman argues the trial court erred by finding that he violated the CC&Rs by working on his vehicle, that he had failed to remove the oil stains from his driveway, and refused to paint his house. These issues, however, are moot.

¶9 "A decision becomes moot for purposes of appeal where as a result of a change of circumstances before the appellate decision, action by the reviewing court would have no effect on the parties." Bank of New York Mellon v. De Meo, 227 Ariz. 192, ¶ 8 (App. 2011) (quoting Vinson v. Marton & Assocs., 159 Ariz. 1, 4 (App. 1988)); see also Flores v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 218 Ariz. 52, ¶ 24 (App. 2008). Arizona courts typically decline to consider moot or abstract questions as a matter of judicial restraint. See Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 2 v. Phx. Emp. Relations Bd., 133 Ariz. 126, 127 (1982). In other words, "[i]t is not an appellate court's function to declare principles of law which cannot have any practical effect in settling the rights of litigants." Kondaur Capital Corp. v. Pinal County, 235 Ariz. 189, ¶ 8 (App. 2014) (quoting Progressive Specialty Ins. Co. v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Ariz., 143 Ariz. 547, 548 (App. 1985)).

¶10 That said, we may exercise discretionary review of moot issues on appeal if it concerns "an issue of great public importance" or is "capable of repetition yet evading review." Cardoso v. Soldo, 230 Ariz. 614, ¶ 5 (App. 2012). An issue is of great public importance if it "involves an issue that will have broad public impact beyond resolution of the specific case." Id. ¶ 6. And an issue is capable of repetition if there is a "'reasonable expectation' . . . that the same controversy will recur involving the same complaining party." Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 482 (1982); see also Cardoso, 230 Ariz. 614, ¶ 7.¶11 Huffman's arguments challenging the trial court's order to remedy the breach-of-contract claims are moot because he cleaned the oil stains, removed his car from the driveway, and painted his home. Further, Huffman's arguments do not have any potential for broad public impact nor are they capable of repetition. See Cardoso, 230 Ariz. 614, ¶¶ 6-7. Because any relief we could provide "cannot have any practical effect," Kondaur Capital Corp., 235 Ariz. 189, ¶ 8 (quoting Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 143 Ariz. at 548), as these particular issues are "no longer in existence," Flores, 218 Ariz. 52, ¶ 24, Huffman's arguments are moot, and we will not address them.

"Ambush" Evidence

¶12 Huffman also argues the trial court erred in admitting "evidence and testimony" presented by Magic Ranch during the "[s]how cause [h]earing"3 relating to Huffman "'working on his vehicle' when [Magic Ranch's notices and pleadings] alleged only that [Huffman] had an 'inoperable vehicle' on his property." We review a court's evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. BNCCORP, Inc. v. HUB Int'l Ltd., 243 Ariz. 1, ¶ 35 (App. 2017).

¶13 "Arizona follows a notice pleading standard, the purpose of which is to 'give the opponent fair notice of the nature and basis of the claim and indicate generally the type of litigation involved.'" Cullen v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 218 Ariz. 417, ¶ 6 (2008) (quoting Mackey v. Spangler, 81 Ariz. 113, 115 (1956)); see also Verduzco v. Am. Valet, 240 Ariz. 221, ¶ 9 (App. 2016) (notice pleading rules do not require complaint to include every evidentiary detail of plaintiff's claim for relief). Further, admissibility of evidence is solely within the discretion of the court, "and we will not disturb its decision absent an abuse of that discretion and resulting prejudice." Crackel v. Allstate Ins. Co., 208 Ariz. 252, ¶ 59 (App. 2004).

¶14 At the evidentiary hearing, Paul Jackson, President of the Magic Ranch Board of Directors, testified that the association is legally required to enforce the CC&Rs and that its board of directors determines whether violations exist. According to Jackson, Huffman was not permitted to construct, reconstruct, or repair any vehicle in the visible vicinity of neighboring properties, and he had, in fact, "been operating and working on his vehicle in violation of 3.22 of the CC&Rs for almost three years." Huffman argued "[t]he [rel...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT