Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kresock v. Gordon

Court of Appeals of Arizona, First Division

March 17, 2016

FRANK D. KRESOCK, JR.; RICHARD W. HUNDLEY and law firm of BERENS, KOZUB, KLOBERDANZ & BLONSTEIN, P.L.C., Petitioners,
v.
THE HONORABLE MICHAEL GORDON, Judge of the SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, in and for the County of MARICOPA, Respondent Judge, ROSEMARY DePAOLI; GREGORY MEELL; ABRAM, MEELL & CANDIOTO, P.A., an Arizona professional corporation, Real Parties in Interest

          Petition for Special Action from the Superior Court in Maricopa County. CV2013-055126. The Honorable Michael D. Gordon, Judge. The Honorable John R. Hannah Jr., Judge.

         For Petitioner: Richard W. Hundley, Berens, Kozub, Kloberdanz & Blonstein, PLC, Phoenix.

         For Real Parties in Interest: Daniel R. Malinski, Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A., Phoenix.

         Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the Opinion of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani and Judge Diane M. Johnsen joined.

          OPINION

         Samuel A. Thumma, Judge:

         [¶1] Accepting jurisdiction in this special action, this court grants relief because attorneys' fees imposed as sanctions pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) section 12-349 (2016)[1] and Ariz. R. Civ. P. 11 are not " damages awarded" for purposes of calculating a supersedeas bond pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2108(A) and Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 7(a)(4)(A).

         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         [¶2] The superior court dismissed on motion Petitioner Frank D. Kresock Jr.'s civil claims against the Real Parties in Interest Rosemary DePaoli, Gregory J. and Jane Doe Meell, and Abram, Meell & Candioto, P.A. As sanctions pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-349 and Ariz. R. Civ. P. 11, the judgment awarded attorneys' fees to the Real Parties and against Kresock, his attorney Petitioner Richard W. Hundley and Hundley's law firm Petitioner Berens, Kozub, Kloberdanz and Blonstein, P.L.C. Petitioners' appeal from that judgment is pending before this court.

         [¶3] Petitioners unsuccessfully asked the superior court to stay enforcement of the judgment, claiming no supersedeas bond was required because the judgment awarded no damages. The same day the superior court denied that requested stay, Petitioners sought a similar stay from this court in the appeal. This court denied that motion without prejudice to Petitioners filing a special action. This is that special action.

         DISCUSSION

         [¶4] Given the nature of a supersedeas bond, and the unique procedural background of this case, exercising special action jurisdiction is appropriate. See Ariz. R.P. Spec. Act. 1(a); see also City Ctr. Exec. Plaza, LLC, v. Jantzen, 237 Ariz. 37, 39 ¶ 2, 344 P.3d 339 (App. 2015) (citing cases). Accordingly, this court accepts special action jurisdiction.

         [¶5] The relevant portion of the supersedeas bond statute provides:

If a plaintiff in any civil action obtains a judgment under any legal theory, the amount of the bond that is necessary to stay execution during the course of all appeals or discretionary reviews of that judgment by any ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.