A decision handed down Thursday by the Arizona Court of Appeals highlights the importance of judges and litigants to pay attention to the fine print of court orders and court rules.
According to the unanimous decision, a woman who served as personal executive of a Pima County estate jumped the gun in appealing a court order denying her request for a payout of nearly $39,000 from the sale of a deceased’s home.
The appeal was premature because paperwork signed by a Pima County judge did not include wording that is required before an appeal can be pursued, Presiding Judge Karl Eppich noted in the April 29 decision.
Court records show a trustee sale was conducted in 2018 of a residence in Pima County. The sale resulted in more than $45,800 in excess proceeds, which the trustee deposited with the Pima County Treasurer while awaiting a court order for the proper dispersal of the funds.
Two liens were on file as possible claims against the excess proceeds, including one for $7,239. A Pima County judge ordered payment to that lienholder in 2019, and when making the order the judge described it as a “final judgment,” even though there was still a $38,587 balance with the county treasurer.
The estate’s personal representative then filed an application to have the remaining money disbursed. In August 2020, the Pima County judge denied the application, noting the second lien -which belonged to Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) – had not yet been resolved. AHCCCS regularly files such liens in order to obtain reimbursement for services provided by the state.
The personal representative appealed the denial. Despite an active appeal, Judge Leslie Miller of the Pima County Superior Court ordered the release of the remaining monies to AHCCCS in October 2020.
An attorney for AHCCCS responded to the appeal, arguing that the Court of Appeals did not have jurisdiction to hear the case because the paperwork from the Pima County court in 2019 did not include a proper or legitimate “final judgment” notation.
According to Eppich’s decision, the court of appeals has “an independent obligation in every appeal to ensure we have jurisdiction, and we must dismiss an appeal over which we lack jurisdiction.”
The problem, Eppich noted, is that the “final judgment” comment by the lower court in 2019 was incorrect –there could not have been a final disposition if the AHCCCS lien remained in play and $38,587 still had to be addressed.
“Thus, the challenged order was not a final judgment,” Eppich noted. “Because the order appealed from was not signed, nor certified as final under Rule 54(b), it is not appealable… Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is dismissed.”
Eppich did not order the executor to pay any court costs or AHCCCS attorney’s fees associated with the failed appeal. The appellate decision also points out Miller failed to include the requisite final judgment wording in the October 2020 order paying out all remaining funds.