Cited by

SWC Baseline & Crismon Invs., ¶ 47 (App. 2011).2 ¶13 The spouse claiming that community labor and funds increased the value of the other spouse's separate property has the burden of showing the amount of the increase.

The false and disparaging statement must be made with malice, which “means acting ‘from improper motives or without reasonable belief in the efficacy of the claim.’” SWC Baseline & Crismon Invs., L.L.C. v. Augusta Ranch Ltd. P’ship, ¶ 63 (App. 2011) (citation omitted).

Trust was required to demonstrate that Wheeler knew the lis pendens were groundless, “unsupported by any credible evidence, and lacked any arguable basis.” SWC Baseline & Crismon Invs., L.L.C. v. Augusta Ranch Ltd. P’ship, ¶ 40 (App. 2011).

See SWC Baseline & Crismon Invs., L.L.C. v. Augusta Ranch Ltd. P’ship, –81 ¶ 29 (App. 2011) (“‘A quit claim deed conveys to the grantee no greater rights to the property conveyed than the grantor possessed .

¶15 “Summary judgment dismissing a punitive damages claim is appropriate in the absence of facts sufficient to show by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with the requisite evil mind.”2 SWC Baseline & Crismon Invs., L.L.C. v. Augusta Ranch Ltd. P’ship

SWC Baseline & Crismon Inv'rs, ¶ 31 (App. 2011).

SWC Baseline & Crimson Inv’rs, L.L.C. v. Augusta Ranch Ltd. P’ship, ¶ 95 (App. 2011).

See SWC Baseline & Crismon Inv’rs, L.L.C. v. Augusta Ranch Ltd. P’ship, ¶¶ 46-50 (App. 2011) (vacating damages award because the plaintiff disclosed it was seeking “rent” and the value of the “right to use” but not “that it would claim $765 a month in damages”).

We review the entry of judgment as a matter of law de novo, “viewing the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” SWC Baseline & Crismon Inv’rs, L.L.C. v. Augusta Ranch Ltd. P’ship, ¶ 93 (App. 2011) ().

has no arguable basis or is not supported by any credible evidence.” SWC Baseline & Crismon Inv’rs, L.L.C. v. Augusta Ranch Ltd. P’ship, ¶ 31 (App. 2011) citing Evergreen W.

¶16 “A party seeking reformation of a written agreement must show that a definite [i]ntention on which the minds of the parties had met pre-existed the written instrument and that [a] mistake occurred in its execution.” SWC Baseline & Crismon Inv’rs, L.L.C. v. Augusta Ranch Ltd. P’ship, ¶ 18 (App. 2011) (citation omitted); (“Mistake, as the word is used in connection with reformation, is a state of mind not in accord with the facts.”).

P. 26.1(a)(7); SWC Baseline & Crismon Inv’rs, L.L.C. v. Augusta Ranch Ltd. P’ship, ¶ 50-52 (App. 2011) (vacating damages because, although the party’s disclosure statements referred to generally related things, it never revealed the amount of damages it would seek).

SWC Baseline & Crismon Inv'rs, ¶ 74 (App. 2011) (quoting Sec.

¶18 "Punitive damages are appropriate 'only in the most egregious of cases,'" upon proof of both "the defendant's 'reprehensible conduct' and 'evil mind.'" SWC Baseline & Crismon Inv'rs, L.L.C. v. Augusta 7 SOBIESKI v. AM STANDARD, et al. Opinion of the Court Ranch Ltd. P'ship, ¶ 74 (App. 2011) (quoting Sec.

See Bujanda, 125 Ariz. at 316 (consent cannot be implied “by admission without objection of evidence relevant to an issue within the pleadings”); see also SWC Baseline & Crismon Inv’rs, L.L.C. v. Augusta Ranch Ltd. P’ship, -91, ¶ 82 (App. 2011).

§ 33–420(A) imposes liability on one who records a document asserting an interest in real property while “knowing or having reason to know that the document is forged, groundless, contains a material misstatement or false claim or is otherwise invalid.” Id.; SWC Baseline & Crismon Inv'rs, -80, ¶ 23 (App. 2011).

SWC Baseline & Crismon Investors, ¶ 99 , -08, ¶ 14 , -61 (App.2008).