§ 11.2.3 Right To Recover Superior Court Fees On Appeal.

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

§ 11.2.3 Right To Recover Superior Court Fees On Appeal. Until 2012, ARCAP 21(c) permitted the appellate court to consider claims for attorneys’ fees incurred “in connection with the . . . prosecution or defense of the case in the superior court.” The 2012 amendments deleted that portion of the rule but the text did not expressly exclude the possibility of seeking fees incurred in the superior court. The 2014 amendments, however, confined ARCAP 21 to “attorneys’ fees incurred on appeal or review,” ARCAP 21(a) (2014), and the 2015 amendments added greater specificity in this regard: “attorney’s fees incurred on appeal or on a petition or cross-petition for review,” ARCAP 21(a) (2015). Nothing in these changes precludes an appellate court from reviewing whether superior court fees were improperly granted or denied. However, absent further direction from the appellate courts, it is unclear whether any scenario remains in which an appellate court may actually fix fees incurred in the superior court, or whether appellate courts must instead remand all such calculations to the superior court.

A trial judge has broad discretion in deciding whether to grant attorneys’ fees under A.R.S. § 12-341.01; the judge’s decision will not be reversed by the court of appeals if the record contains any reasonable basis for the exercise of that discretion. Associated Indem. Corp. v. Warner, 143 Ariz. 567, 571, 694 P.2d 1181, 1185 (1985); In re Guardianship of Pacheco, 219 Ariz. 421, 430, ¶ 38, 199 P.3d 676, 685 (App. 2008); Uyleman v. D.S. Rentco, 194 Ariz. 300, 305, ¶ 27, 981 P.2d 1081, 1086 (App. 1999); Paloma Inv. Ltd. P’ship v. Jenkins, 194 Ariz. 133, 139, ¶¶ 30-32, 978 P.2d 110, 116 (App. 1998) (holding that appellate court should uphold trial court’s award of attorneys’ fees so long as reasonable basis exists for decision); Hart v. Seven Resorts Inc., 190 Ariz. 272, 283-84, 947 P.2d 846, 857-58 (App. 1997) (appellate court will reverse award or denial of fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01 only if trial court abuses its discretion, but court will reverse denial of fees if trial court based ruling on unsupported factual claims); see also Cambridge Co. v. Ariz. Lawn Sprinklers, Inc., 166 Ariz. 269, 272, 801 P.2d 504, 507 (App. 1990) (although trial court is encouraged to state reasons for denying fees, such justification is not required); Pettay v. Ins. Mktg. Servs., Inc. (W.), 156 Ariz. 365, 368, 752 P.2d 18, 21 (App. 1987) (superior court is presumed to have reviewed...