Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT
PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE
v.
COUNSEL
MEMORANDUM DECISION
P O R T L E Y, Judge:
3We recite those facts relevant to the current appeal, recognizing additional
background can be found in the prior appeal. Rogone v. Correia, 236 Ariz.
43 (App. 2014).
2
ROGONE, et al. v. SASSER
Decision of the Court
3 This appeal involves the property the parties call the Bronco
Trail Property. Consistent with the advisory jurys findings, the court
ordered that property be sold and that the sale proceeds be applied to the
Rogones judgment. Shortly after the entry of judgment, but before the
property was sold, Rose moved into the Bronco Trail Property and claimed
it was exempt from collection as her homestead under A.R.S. 33-1101(A).
1. Rose is and has been, and at all times from and after
entry of [the Arizona November 2009] Judgment, entitled to
claim a homestead exemption in the Bronco Trail Property.
Upon Sheriffs Sale and issuance of Sheriffs Deed to the
Bronco Trail Property, Rose was improperly denied her
homestead exemption.
3
ROGONE, et al. v. SASSER
Decision of the Court
DISCUSSION
7 The Rogones first challenge the finding that Rose is and has
been, and at all times, from and after entry of Judgment, entitled to claim a
homestead exemption in the Bronco Trail Property. We do not disturb a
trial courts factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Ramsey v.
Ariz. Registrar of Contractors, 241 Ariz. 102, 109, 22 (App. 2016). A finding
of fact is not clearly erroneous if substantial evidence supports it, even if
substantial conflicting evidence exists. Id. (quoting Kocher v. Dept of
Revenue of Ariz., 206 Ariz. 480, 482, 9 (App. 2003)).
4
ROGONE, et al. v. SASSER
Decision of the Court
suggest Rose abandoned the property at any time before the 2011 sheriffs
sale.
5
ROGONE, et al. v. SASSER
Decision of the Court
6
ROGONE, et al. v. SASSER
Decision of the Court
CONCLUSION
(confirming the July 26, 2011 prime rate as 3.25 percent) (last viewed March
8, 2017).