Cited by

See Crowe v. Hickman’s Egg Ranch, Inc., ¶ 16 (App. 2002) (legal theory not preserved on appeal when party failed to raise it with the trial court even though the record contained evidence to support the theory).

¶21 Second, Arizona recognizes a narrow, equitable exception for contractors who substantially comply with licensing requirements, see Crowe v. Hickman’s Egg Ranch, Inc., ¶ 8 (App. 2002), potentially making a contract merely voidable, rather than void.

See Crowe v. Hickman’s Egg Ranch, Inc., ¶ 16 (App. 2002) (“Issues not properly raised below are waived.”).

See Crowe v. Hickman’s Egg Ranch, Inc., ¶ 16 (App. 2002) (“Issues not properly raised below are waived.”) (citing ARCAP 13(b)(3), and R.E.

App. P. 13(a)(7)(B) (requiring appellant’s opening brief to specify where in the record “the particular issue was raised and ruled on”); Crowe v. Hickman’s Egg Ranch, Inc., ¶ 16 (App. 2002) (stating that the failure to raise an issue to the superior court waives the argument on appeal).

See Crowe v. Hickman’s Egg Ranch, Inc., ¶ 16 (App. 2002); see also Brake Masters Sys., ¶ 15 (App. 2003) (holding that any error in trial court’s failure to hold an evidentiary hearing was waived because the parties did not raise the issue at trial).

See Crowe v. Hickman’s Egg Ranch, Inc., ¶ 18, ( ).

Crowe v. Hickman’s Egg Ranch, Inc., ¶ 6

Aubuchon waived the fourth argument by raising it for the first time on appeal, see Crowe v. Hickman’s Egg Ranch, Inc., ¶ 16, and by failing to substantiate it with citations to the record, ARCAP 13(a)(6).

Crowe v. Hickman’s Egg Ranch, Inc., -16, ¶¶ 10-11 , -54 , (App.2002) (emphasis added) (stating further that “The contractor bears the burden of proof to demonstrate substantial compliance” (citation omitted)).

Crowe v. Hickman’s Egg Ranch, Inc., ¶ 16 , (stating that the failure to raise an issue in trial court waives the argument on appeal); Rhoads v. Harvey Publ’ns, Inc., , (reiterating the rule that an appellate court will not reverse summary judgment on grounds first advanced

Crowe v. Hickman’s Egg Ranch, Inc., ¶ 16

¶ 6 , (appellate court should only consider factual arguments presented to the trial court); Crowe v. Hickman's Egg Ranch, Inc., ¶ 16 , (failure to raise theory in trial court waived argument on appeal).

[4] See also Crowe v. Hickman's Egg Ranch, Inc., -17, ¶ 17-18 , -55 (App.2002) (declining to recognize a judicial exception for the equitable argument of ratification); B & P Concrete, , ("In barring suit by an unlicensed contractor, there seems little doubt that the legislative

Bertram, (supreme court refused to consider contract theory of recovery when only negligence theory alleged and argued in trial court); (new factual theories waived on appeal from summary judgment if not first raised in trial court); see also Crowe v. Hickman’s Egg Ranch, Inc., (“Issues not properly raised below are waived.”).

(“As a general rule, we will not review an issue on appeal that was not argued or factually established in the trial court.”) (citations omitted); Crowe v. Hickman’s Egg Ranch, Inc., ¶ 16

If so, this is fatal to a claim of substantial compliance.”); see also Crowe v. Hickman’s Egg Ranch, Inc., ¶ 10 , (citing Aesthetic Prop.

Appellant’s failure to raise such defense constituted a waiver thereof.”) (citation omitted); see also Crowe v. Hickman’s Egg Ranch, , (“Issues not raised below are waived.”).

32 See Crowe v. Hick *174 man’s Egg Ranch, Inc., , (“Issues not properly raised below are waived.”).