Cited by

billing entry for “‘reviewing and cataloging’ social media posts for 1.5 hours[.]” ¶20 “Once a party establishes its entitlement to fees and meets the minimum requirements in its application and affidavit for fees, the burden shifts to the party opposing the fee award to demonstrate the impropriety or unreasonableness of the requested fees.” Nolan v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Ass’n, ¶ 38 (App. 2007).

Nolan v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Ass’n, ¶ 34 (App. 2007).

See Nolan v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Ass’n, (explaining that plaintiff must prove defendant “unreasonably interfered” with plaintiff’s “use and enjoyment” of property, “causing significant harm,” to prevail on nuisance-tort claim).

For another’s actions to rise to the level of nuisance, the interference with another’s use and enjoyment of land must be “substantial, intentional and unreasonable under the circumstances.” Nolan v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Ass’n, ¶ 32 (App. 2007).

¶ 11 (2021); ¶ 34 (App. 2007) ("[W]e review the trial court's decision regarding the amount of fees awarded for an abuse of discretion.").

See Nolan v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Ass’n, ¶ 38 (App. 2007).

“Once a party establishes its entitlement to fees and meets the minimum requirements in its application and affidavit for fees, the burden shifts to the party opposing the fee award to demonstrate the impropriety or unreasonableness of the requested fees.” Nolan v. Starlight Pines Homeowner Ass’n, ¶ 38 (App. 2007) (citation omitted).

Nolan v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Ass’n, –91 ¶ 38 (App. 2007).

Nolan v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Ass’n, –91 ¶ 38 (App. 2007).

However, “[o]nce a party establishes its entitlement to fees and meets the minimum requirements in its application and affidavit for fees, the burden shifts to the party opposing the fee award to demonstrate the impropriety or unreasonableness of the requested fees.” Nolan v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Ass’n, ¶ 38 (App. 2007).

§ 12-341.01.”); Nolan v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Ass’n, ¶ 36 (App. 2007) (“[A] court may award fees to a defendant [pursuant to A.R.S.

See Nolan v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Ass’n, ¶ 38 (App. 2007) (“Once a party establishes its entitlement to fees and meets the minimum requirements in its application and affidavit for fees, the burden shifts to the party opposing the fee award to demonstrate the impropriety or unreasonableness of the requested fees.”).

See id.; Nolan v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Ass’n, ¶ 27 (App. 2007).

§ 12-341.01, “fees may be awarded to successful parties who have proven the absence of the contract sued upon by the opposing party.” Arizona Attorneys’ Fees Manual § 2.5, supra (citing cases); accord Rudinsky, 231 Ariz. at 101 ¶ 27 (noting that an action still arises out of contract, even though the defendant proved the absence of a contract); Nolan v. Starlight Pine Homeowners Ass’n, ¶ 36 (App. 2007) (“[A] court may award fees to a defendant in a contract action if the defendant prevails on th

(quoting Nolan v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Ass’n, ¶ 38 (App. 2007)).

“A party may breach the implied covenant 5 SPENCER v. ASHER Decision of the Court even in the absence of a breach of an express provision of the contract by denying the other party the reasonably expected benefits of the agreement.” Nolan v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Ass’n, ¶ 27 (App. 2007).

and the time spent in providing the service.’” Nolan v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Ass’n, ¶ 37 (App. 2007) (quoting China Doll, 138 Ariz. at 188).

¶ 34 (App. 2007) (explaining that we review a trial court's application of § 12-341.01 de novo, but we review the amount awarded for an abuse of discretion); see id.

the court erred by granting US Bank over $9,000 in attorneys’ fees because that amount represents an “unrealistic” number of hours “to write and file [its] motion to dismiss.” But a party does not meet its burden of demonstrating unreasonableness of attorneys’ fees by stating simply “that the hours claimed are excessive and the rates submitted too high.” Nolan v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Ass’n, ¶ 38 (App. 2007).

We view the evidence in the light most favorable to Glasser, the non-moving party, and determine de novo “whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the trial court erred in its application of the law.” Nolan v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Ass’n, ¶ 10, 5 ¶12 The superior court ruled the evidence would not support a finding that the McDowell Property was under renovation at the time of the loss because, as a matter of law, cleaning, repairing, and maintaining the 4 Glasser a

Nolan v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Ass’n, ¶ 38 (App. 2007).

Nolan v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Ass’n, –91, ¶¶ 37–38 (App. 2007) (application for fees must comply with requirements of Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc., before burden shifts to party opposing fees to show amount requested is unreasonable).

Nolan v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Ass’n

5 KUROWSKI v. GORMAN Decision of the Court 249, 262, ¶ 43 (App. 2013) (finding no abuse of discretion where the objecting party “fail[ed] to identify with any particularity what evidence supports a further reduction in fees beyond the reduction already granted by the trial court”); Nolan v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Ass’n, ¶ 39 (App. 2007) (finding no abuse of discretion where the objecting party “argued generally that .

Athough “[a] party may breach the implied covenant [of good faith and fair dealing] even in the absence of a breach of an express provision of the contract by denying the other party the reasonably expected benefits of the agreement,” Nolan v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Ass’n, ¶ 27 , the Becks could not have reasonably expected to recover possession of the Jaguar without paying the charges they agreed to pay, especially in light of their position that A.R.S.