§ 3.3.3.2.1 Cross-Appeal vs. Cross-Issue.

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

§ 3.3.3.2.1 Cross-Appeal vs. Cross-Issue. ARCAP 13(b) provides that an appellee may argue any issue properly presented in the superior court as grounds to affirm the judgment, without a cross-appeal, so long as the issue is stated in the statement of issues presented for review and in the argument. The appellate court can affirm the judgment on any such grounds. However, it can only alter the judgment in a manner favorable to the appellee if a cross-appeal is filed.

Additions to ARCAP 13(b) adopted in 1992 changed prior Arizona law requiring a cross-appeal to be filed before permitting argument concerning reasons for upholding a judgment, other than those relied upon by the trial court, whenever those reasons attacked the judgment itself. See Horton v. Mitchell, 200 Ariz. 523, 525-26, ¶ 9, 29 P.3d 870, 872-73 (App. 2001); Bowman v. Bd. of Regents of Univs. & State Colls. of Ariz., 162 Ariz. 551, 557, 785 P.2d 71, 77 (App. 1989). Thus, for example, a cross-appeal has been held necessary to seek a larger monetary award than granted by the trial court, injunctive relief when only damages were awarded below, or reversal of a trial court denial of attorneys’ fees. See State Bar Committee Note to ARCAP 13(b) (citing A M Leasing, Ltd. v. Baker, 163 Ariz. 194, 196, 786 P.2d 1045, 1047 (App. 1989); Hoffman v. Greenberg, 159 Ariz. 377, 380, 767 P.2d 725, 728 (App. 1988)).

The same reasoning supporting such additional relief can be argued under ARCAP 13(b) without a cross-appeal, so long as the judgment below is merely...