Cited by

Props., L.L.C., ¶ 35 (App. 2009)); see Murphy Farrell Dev., LLLP, 229 Ariz. at 133, ¶ 31 ("We will uphold the court's implicit determination that [the defendant] is not the 'prevailing party' if it had a reasonable basis for doing so, thereby properly exercising its discretion.").

Props., L.L.C., –34, ¶ 32 (App. 2009).

Props., L.L.C., ¶ 32 (App. 2009).

Props., L.L.C., ¶ 35 (App. 2009) (prevailing party determination “will not be disturbed on appeal if any reasonable basis exists for it.”).

¶23 “[A] tenant’s right to possession may not be conditioned on perfect performance of a commercial lease, but may be forfeited only upon a material breach.” Maleki v. Desert Palms Prof’l Properties, L.L.C., ¶ 24 (App. 2009).

Maleki v. Desert Palms Prof’l Props., L.L.C., -34, ¶ 32 (App. 2009).

Properties, L.L.C., –34 (App. 2009).

Props., L.L.C., ¶ 28 3 HARGRAVE v. SELECT PORTFOLIO, et al. Decision of the Court (App. 2009).

¶87 “The decision as to who is the successful party for purposes of awarding attorneys’ fees is within the sole discretion of the trial court, and will not be disturbed on appeal if any reasonable basis exists for it.” Maleki v. Desert Palms Prof’l Props., L.L.C., ¶ 35 (App. 2009).

Props., L.L.C., ¶ 25 n.2 (App. 2009); Found.

We review those awards for an abuse of discretion, Maleki v. Desert Palms Prof’l Properties, L.L.C., –34, ¶ 32 (App. 2009), and will uphold them if there is any reasonable supporting basis.

See Maleki v. Desert Palms Prof'l Props., L.L.C., ¶ 27 (App. 2009).

Fund, ¶¶ 69–70 (2002); Maleki v. Desert Palms Prof’l Props., L.L.C., ¶ 28 (App. 2009).

E.g., Maleki v. Desert Palms Prof’l Props., L.L.C., ¶¶ 34–35 (App. 2009); John Deere Ins.

See Maleki v. Desert Palms Prof'l Props., L.L.C., ¶ 27 (App. 2009) ("the record contains substantial evidence that [appellee] did not materially breach the lease").

See Maleki v. Desert Palms Prof'l Props., L.L.C., ¶ 27 (App. 2009) ("the record contains substantial evidence that [appellee] did not materially breach the lease").

We review a trial court’s award of costs for an abuse of discretion, Maleki v. Desert Palms Prof’l Props., L.L.C., -34, ¶ 32, -22 (App. 2009), but the issue of whether a particular expenditure qualifies as a taxable cost is a question of law that we review de novo.

o forego substantial benefits and protections provided by law, *598 ¶ 25 Generally, if a contract contains a prevailing-party provision, “[t]he decision as to who is the successful party for purposes of awarding attorneys’ fees is within the sole discretion of the trial court, and will not be disturbed on appeal if any reasonable basis exists for it.” Maleki v. Desert Palms Prof'l Props., L.L.C., ¶ 32

See Maleki v. Desert Palms Professional Properties, L.L.C., P.3d 415 (App. 2009) (whether tenant may exercise his right to renew depends on whether breach is material, serious, or substantial.)

Maleki v. Desert Palms Prof’l Props., LLC, -34, ¶ 32 (App. 2009).

Fire Ins., ¶ 80 (App. 2010) (citing Maleki v. Desert Palms Prof’l Props., L.L.C., ¶ 32 (App. 2009)).

Maleki v. Desert Palms Prof’l Props., L.L.C., ¶ 28 (App. 2009) (citing Wells Fargo, 201 Ariz. at 493, ¶¶ 69-70).

We review a trial court’s award of fees and costs for an abuse of discretion, Maleki v. Desert Palms Profl Props., L.L.C., , 333-34 ¶ 32, -22 (App.2009), and will uphold the court’s ruling if it has “any reasonable basis,” State Farm Mut.

Maleki v. Desert Palms Prof’l Props., L.L.C., -34, ¶ 32 (App. 2009).

Maleki v. Desert Palms Prof'l Props., L.L.C., ¶ 28