Not for Publication Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CV2012-010705, The Honorable Benjamin E. Vatz, Judge
Tiffany & Bosco, PA, Phoenix By Leonard J. McDonald, Jr., David W. Cowles Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee
William Denslow, Jordana Denslow, Anthem Defendants/Appellants In Propria Persona
Judge Randall M. Howe, presiding, delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Patricia A. Orozco joined.
HOWE, PRESIDING JUDGE
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶1 William and Jordana Denslow appeal the trial court's ruling in favor of Colonial Savings' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in this forcible entry and detainer (FED) action. For the following reasons, we affirm.
¶2 Colonial Savings filed an FED complaint alleging that the Denslows were occupying and refusing to surrender real property that Colonial Savings had purchased at a trustee's sale. The Denslows filed an answer and counterclaim on their own behalf, arguing in pertinent part that:
We are filing for dismissal because no proof of an order from the STATE DEPARTMENT or the FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT was given, as COLONAIL (sic) SAVINGS, F.A. is a UNITED STATES CORPORATION and foreign to the United of America (sic) per the Constitution of 1787 and we are Americans not CORPORATIONS, not fictions, not spelled in Uppercase letters but real flesh and blood Americans with our names spelled in Upper and Lower case letters therefore the [Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act] applies. We were not properly notified [and] jurisdiction is not established and this case needs to be dismissed with prejudice in favor of Defendants in Error with Counterclaim granted in its entirety.
¶3 At a preliminary hearing held on August 15, 2012, Colonial Savings moved to strike the Denslows' counterclaim. When the trial court asked the Denslows to respond, the Denslows declined to do so, stating: "Defendants do not accept the court's offer to respond." The trial court granted Colonial Saving's motion, stating that the Denslows' "counterclaim is at best, vague and unintelligible. It refers to exhibits attached thereto that fail to more clearly articulate the basis for the counterclaim."
¶4 On August 20, 2012, Colonial Savings moved for judgment on the pleadings, and the Denslows did not respond. At a hearing on the FED action, the Denslows requested a jury trial. The trial court denied the request as untimely because the Denslows had filed their request after they had made an initial appearance. After denying the Denslows' request for a continuance, the court granted Colonial Bank's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and found the Denslows guilty of forcible detainer.
¶5 Two days later, on August 29, 2012, the Denslows moved for reconsideration, stating simply "I believe that the facts do not support the present [j]udgment." The trial court denied the ...