Not for Publication – Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CV2012-012055 The Honorable Arthur T. Anderson, Judge
Seidberg Law Offices, P.C., Phoenix By Kenneth W. Seidberg, Joseph L. Whipple Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee
Corrina E. Ruiz, Buckeye Defendant/Appellant, in Propria Persona
Presiding Judge Winthrop delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Downie and Judge Thompson joined.
WINTHROP, Presiding Judge:
¶1 Corrina E. Ruiz ("Appellant") appeals the ruling of the trial court granting a motion for summary judgment in favor of Citibank, N.A. ("Citibank"). Appellant argues that the trial court should not have granted the motion for summary judgment because Appellant did not have the opportunity to present a "court order" proving that she did not need to pay the balance remaining on a Citibank-issued credit card. For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 On August 9, 2012, Citibank filed a complaint in Maricopa County Superior Court to collect on the outstanding balance of $16, 999.84 on a credit card issued by Citibank to Appellant beginning in 2005. In her Answer, Appellant admitted that she had obtained a line of credit from Citibank, that she used or authorized a third party to use the line of credit, and that, to the extent she was married, the line of credit was used to benefit the marital community. Appellant denied that she received monthly billing statements, denied responsibility for discontinuing the required minimum payments, and denied responsibility to pay the outstanding balance. Appellant later claimed that "[the] card has been destroyed for many years" and that she was "not responsible for this account balance per court order."
¶3 On September 19, 2012, Citibank filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Appellant did not respond to the motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion on December 19, 2012, awarding Citibank the full balance, plus taxable court costs of $407.80, attorneys' fees in the amount of $603.00, and interest after judgment accruing on the balance, court costs, and attorneys' fees at 4.25% per annum.
¶4 Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on January 9, 2013. We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2013) and 12-2101(A)(1).
¶5 Appellant argues that the trial court erred in granting Citibank's motion for summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact exist that should have precluded summary judgment. We disagree.
¶6 We review the trial court's grant of summary judgment and its application of law de novo. Andrews v. Blake, 205 Ariz. 236, 240, ¶ 12, 69 P.3d 7, 11 (2003); State Comp. Fund v. Yellow Cab Co., 197 Ariz. 120, 122, ¶ 5, 3 P.3d 1040, 1042 (App. 1999). We construe the facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the opposing party. Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, 201 Ariz. 474, 482, ¶ 13, 38 P.3d 12, 20 (2002). Summary judgment is proper only if no genuine issues of material fact exist and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Orme Sch. v. Reeves, 166 Ariz. 301, 309, 802 P.2d 1000, 1008 (1990); Ariz. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Accordingly, we will affirm summary judgment only if the facts produced in ...