Radford v. Radford, 110419 AZAPP2, 2 CA-CV 2019-0062

Docket Nº:2 CA-CV 2019-0062
Opinion Judge:BREARCLIFFE, JUDGE:
Party Name:Monika Radford, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Evan Radford, Defendant/Appellant.
Attorney:Evan Radford, Tucson In Propria Persona
Judge Panel:Judge Brearcliffe authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Staring and Chief Judge Vásquez concurred.
Case Date:November 04, 2019
Court:Court of Appeals of Arizona
 
FREE EXCERPT

Monika Radford, Plaintiff/Appellee,

v.

Evan Radford, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 2 CA-CV 2019-0062

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Second Division

November 4, 2019

Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court

Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. DV20190421 The Honorable Cathleen Linn, Judge Pro Tempore

Evan Radford, Tucson In Propria Persona

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

MEMORANDUM DECISION

BREARCLIFFE, JUDGE:

¶1 Evan Radford appeals from the March 2019 order of protection issued by the trial court to Radford's former wife, Monika Radford. We affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court's order. Cullum v. Cullum, 215 Ariz. 352, ¶ 9 (App. 2007). In March 2019, Monika filed a petition for an order of protection. On March 8, 2019, the court granted the petition after an ex parte hearing. A minute entry order reflects that a contested hearing was then held on March 21, 2019. The order also reflects that the court provided Evan notice of the hearing yet he failed to appear and failed to provide the court with any reason for his absence. The order states that the court questioned Monika and affirmed the order of protection.

Analysis

¶3 To the extent we understand his appeal, Evan challenges the accuracy of Monika's testimony supporting her request for the order of protection. 1 Evan further claims that leaving the order of protection in place would be "highly detrimental to the healing process." However, Evan has failed to comply with the Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure to such an extent that he has waived his arguments.

¶4 An opening brief must contain an argument with "[a]ppellant's contentions concerning each issue presented for review, with supporting reasons for each contention, and with citations of legal authorities and appropriate references to the portions of the record on which the appellant relies." Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a)(7)(A). "We generally decline to address...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP