2026-03-19 — Desert Crown III Homeowners Association, an Arizona nonprofit corporation v. Debabrata Gupta, an unmarried man ↑ top

Source

desert-crown-iii-v-gupta.pdf

IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION TWO

DESERT CROWN III HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION,
AN ARIZONA NONPROFIT CORPORATION,
Plaintiff/Appellee,

v.

DEBABRATA GUPTA, AN UNMARRIED MAN,
Defendant/Appellant.

No. 2 CA-CV 2025-0138
Filed March 19, 2026

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 Maricopa County
No. CV2023096287
The Honorable Adam D. Driggs, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Maxwell & Morgan P.C., Mesa
By Garren R. Laymon
Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee

Debabrata Gupta, Scottsdale
In Propria Persona

DESERT CROWN III HOMEOWNERS ASS’N v. GUPTA
Decision of the Court
2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding
Judge Gard and Judge O’Neil concurred.

E C K E R S T R O M, Judge:

In this lien foreclosure action, Debabrata Gupta appeals from
the superior court’s judgment in favor of Desert Crown III Homeowners
Association. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Factual and Procedural Background

We view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the
superior court’s decision. Tucson Estates Property Owners Ass’n v. Jenkins, 247
Ariz. 475, ¶ 2 (App. 2019). Desert Crown initiated a lien foreclosure suit
against Gupta in superior court. The court granted Desert Crown’s motion
to dismiss Gupta’s counterclaim and granted summary judgement in favor
of Desert Crown. The court denied Gupta’s motion for reconsideration and
entered judgment against Gupta as to the lien foreclosure. This appeal
followed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1) and
12-2101(A)(1).
Discussion

Gupta argues the superior court erred in finding a factual
basis for the monetary claims underlying the judgment against him.
Although Gupta is not represented by counsel, we afford him the same
consideration as a represented appellant, holding him to “the same
familiarity with court procedures and the same notice of . . . rules . . . as is
expected of a lawyer.” Higgins v. Higgins, 194 Ariz. 266, ¶ 12 (App. 1999).

Gupta’s opening brief cites no legal authority to support his
claim of error. See Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a)(7)(A) (for each issue presented
for review, opening briefs must contain “citations of legal authorities and
appropriate references to the portions of the record on which the appellant
relies”). Although he cites Rule 403, Ariz. R. Evid., in his reply brief, he
thereafter fails to develop any legal argument in support of his position. See
Ritchie v. Krasner, 221 Ariz. 288, ¶ 62 (App. 2009) (opening brief must
present “significant arguments, supported by authority”). These
deficiencies warrant waiver of appellate review. See Boswell v. Fintelmann,

DESERT CROWN III HOMEOWNERS ASS’N v. GUPTA
Decision of the Court
3
242 Ariz. 52, n.3 (App. 2017) (claims not supported by legal argument
waived); Sholes v. Fernando, 228 Ariz. 455, n.5 (App. 2011) (waiving
arguments that were “unsupported with citation to authority”). Even if we
were to reach Gupta’s argument, he asks that we reweigh the evidence,
which we will not do. See Hurd v. Hurd, 223 Ariz. 48, ¶ 16 (App. 2009) (our
“duty on review” does not include reweighing evidence).
Attorney Fees

Desert Crown requests attorney fees and costs on appeal
pursuant to Rule 21, Ariz. R. Civ. App. P., and A.R.S. §§ 12-341, 12-341.01.
In our discretion, we deny the request for attorney fees. However, as the
prevailing party, Desert Crown is entitled to its costs on appeal upon
compliance with Rule 21. See A.R.S. § 12-341.
Disposition

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the superior court’s
judgment.