07/26/2018 — LC2018000257 COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, DESERT ROSE 07/26/2018 HONORABLE PATRICIA ANN STARR View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
07/27/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2018-000257-001 DT
07/26/2018
Docket Code 504
Form L000
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PATRICIA ANN STARR
C. Avena
Deputy
DESERT ROSE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
CHAD M GALLACHER
v.
MICKEY M SLEDGE (001)
MICKEY M SLEDGE
2518 E FRANCISCO DR
PHOENIX AZ 85042
JUDGE STARR
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC
SOUTH MOUNTAIN JUSTICE COURT
CIVIL
RECORD APPEAL ASSIGNMENT - ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
Lower Court Case No. CC2016-235679.
Memoranda having been filed in the above-mentioned appeal,
IT IS ORDERED assigning this appeal on July 23, 2018 to Hon. Patricia Starr for
determination of the appeal based upon the transcript of the proceedings and the parties’
memoranda, pursuant to Local Rule 9.9, Maricopa County Superior Court Local Rules of Practice,
within sixty (60) days from this date.
Oral argument is requested and this matter is referred to Hon. Patricia Starr for
determination, pursuant to Rules of Procedure in Civil Cases.
IT IS ORDERED denying request for oral argument.
504.CIVIL.OAR
NOTICE: LC cases are not under the e-file system. As a result, when a party files a docu-
ment, the system does not generate a courtesy copy for the Judge. Therefore, you will have to
deliver to the Judge a conformed courtesy copy of any new filings.
09/20/2018 — LC2018000257 COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, DESERT ROSE 09/20/2018 HONORABLE PATRICIA ANN STARR View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court
*** Filed ***
09/25/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2018-000257-001 DT
09/20/2018
Docket Code 513
Form L513
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PATRICIA ANN STARR
C. Avena
Deputy
DESERT ROSE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
CHAD M GALLACHER
v.
MICKEY M SLEDGE (001)
MICKEY M SLEDGE
2518 E FRANCISCO DR
PHOENIX AZ 85042
JUDGE STARR
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC
SOUTH MOUNTAIN JUSTICE COURT
HIGHER COURT RULING / REMAND
Lower Court Case No. CC2016-235679.
Appellant Desert Rose Community Association (“Desert Rose”) seeks reversal of the trial
court’s order declining to award attorneys’ fees as requested by Desert Rose. For the following
reasons, this Court reverses the decision of the trial court and remands for further proceedings
consistent with this Decision.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Desert Rose filed a Complaint against Appellee Mickey M. Sledge seeking judgment for
unpaid assessments, accruing assessments and fees, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. Desert
Rose included the basis for its request for attorneys’ fees in its Complaint, and again in its
Application for Attorneys’ Fees. Appellee did not file an Answer; Desert Rose filed an
Application for Entry of Default and Affidavit on Default.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2018-000257-001 DT
09/20/2018
Docket Code 513
Form L513
Page 2
The trial court entered judgment and awarded Desert Rose an amount for principal and
interest, but declined to award any attorneys’ fees. (Judgment, April 28, 2017.) Desert Rose
filed a timely notice of appeal from the Judgment. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S.
§ 12-124(A).
II. Legal Analysis
An appellate court reviews a trial court’s award or denial of attorneys’ fees for an abuse
of discretion. Vortex Corp. v. Denkewicz, 235 Ariz. 551, 562, ¶ 39 (App. 2014).
Generally, a trial court is not required to grant attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party in a
contested contract case. Associated Indem. Corp. v. Warner (Warner), 143 Ariz. 567, 570
(1985). But as Desert Rose points out, it had an entitlement to attorneys’ fees under the
Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. Under specific language in the
Declaration, Desert Rose is entitled to “reasonable attorneys’ fees” incurred enforcing collection
of delinquent assessments.
Contracts for attorneys’ fees are enforced in accordance with the contractual terms.
Heritage Heights Home Owners Ass’n v. Esser, 115 Ariz. 330, 333 (App. 1977). “[A]
contractual provision providing for an award of unreasonable attorneys’ fees will not be
enforced,” but a trial court may reduce an award that is contractually provided for only upon a
showing that the fees are clearly excessive. McDowell Mountain Ranch Community Ass’n, Inc.
v. Simons, 216 Ariz. 266, 270-71, ¶ 16, ¶ 22 (App. 2007).
There is also a statutory basis for an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees to Desert Rose,
as the prevailing party. “A judgment or decree in any action brought under this section [lien for
assessments] shall include costs and reasonable attorney fees for the prevailing party.” A.R.S. §
33-1807(H).
The trial court did not make specific factual findings, and thus this Court is unable to
determine the basis for its denial of all attorneys’ fees in this matter. Given that there is both a
contractual and statutory basis for an award of such fees, the trial court should have considered
the request for attorneys’ fees, and entered an award of those fees it found reasonable,
considering all the circumstances.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2018-000257-001 DT
09/20/2018
Docket Code 513
Form L513
Page 3
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing,
IT IS ORDERED reversing the trial court’s denial of attorneys’ fees.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED remanding for a determination of reasonable attorneys’
fees, and an award of such fees.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED remanding this matter to the South Mountain Justice Court
for further proceedings consistent with this Decision.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Desert Rose shall submit any Application for Attorneys’
Fees and Costs on Appeal no later than October 12, 2018. Sledge may file any objection no later
than November 9, 2018.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED signing this minute entry as a formal order of the Court.
/s/ Patricia A. Starr
THE HON. PATRICIA A. STARR
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
NOTICE: LC cases are not under the e-file system. As a result, when a party files a docu-
ment, the system does not generate a courtesy copy for the Judge. Therefore, you will have to
deliver to the Judge a conformed courtesy copy of any new filings.
11/15/2018 — LC2018000257 COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, DESERT ROSE 11/15/2018 HONORABLE PATRICIA ANN STARR View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court
*** Filed ***
11/19/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2018-000257-001 DT
11/15/2018
Docket Code 023
Form L000
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PATRICIA ANN STARR
C. Avena
Deputy
DESERT ROSE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
CHAD M GALLACHER
v.
MICKEY M SLEDGE (001)
MICKEY M SLEDGE
2518 E FRANCISCO DR
PHOENIX AZ 85042
JUDGE STARR
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC
SOUTH MOUNTAIN JUSTICE COURT
MINUTE ENTRY
Lower Court Case No. CC2016-235679
The Court has received and considered Plaintiff’s Application for Amount of Attorney
Fees Incurred on Appeal, as well as its Statement of Costs and Notice of Taxation. No responses
were filed.
The Court has considered all relevant factors and finds that an award of attorneys’ fees is
appropriate. Associated Indemnity Corp. v. Warner, 143 Ariz. 567 (1985). The Court also finds
that Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of attorney’s fees pursuant to the applicable CC&Rs. The
Court finds the fee affidavit submitted meets the requirements set forth in Schweiger v. China
Doll Rest., Inc., 138 Ariz. 183, 188 (1983). Specifically, the affidavit indicates the agreed upon
hourly rate, the attorneys providing service, the time spent, and has sufficient detail to enable the
court to assess the reasonableness of the time expended.
The Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees in the amount of
$1,822.50.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2018-000257-001 DT
11/15/2018
Docket Code 023
Form L000
Page 2
The Court has considered the Statement of Costs, and with one exception, finds Plaintiff
is entitled to recovery of costs. The exception is the request for $144.00 in “Annual Computer
Charges.” Plaintiff fails to explain how it is entitled to recovery of an annual expense in relation
to this appeal, nor has Plaintiff explained what the “computer charge” encompasses. The Court
thus declines to award that amount.
Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to costs in the amount of $680.66.
Thus,
IT IS ORDERED awarding attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,822.50.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED awarding costs in the amount of $680.66.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED signing this minute entry as a formal order of the Court.
/s/ Patricia A. Starr
THE HON. PATRICIA A. STARR
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
NOTICE: LC cases are not under the e-file system. As a result, when a party files a docu-
ment, the system does not generate a courtesy copy for the Judge. Therefore, you will have to
deliver to the Judge a conformed courtesy copy of any new filings.
