Ramer v. Cates

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE

KELLY JO RAMER, (f.k.a. KRYZER) Plaintiff/Appellant,

v.

LADONNA CATES, Defendant/Appellee.

No. 1 CA-CV 22-0631
FILED 5-18-2023

Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County
No. S8015CV202200029
The Honorable Lee Frank Jantzen, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Kelly Jo Ramer, Ettrick, WI
Plaintiff/Appellant

LaDonna Cates, Kingman, AZ
Defendant/Appellee

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Angela K. Paton delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge D. Steven Williams joined.
 RAMER v. CATES
Decision of the Court

P A T O N, Judge:

¶1 Kelly Jo Ramer appeals the superior court’s entry of judgment
against LaDonna Cates in the amount of $5,000 for breach of contract,
arguing that the superior court ought to have awarded additional damages.
For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to affirming the
superior court’s judgment. Hammoudeh v. Jada, 222 Ariz. 570, 571, ¶ 2 (App.
2009). Ramer sold her home in Kingman to Cates, and the parties executed
a post-possession agreement allowing Ramer to continue storing her
personal property at the home until 5:00 p.m. on July 6, 2021. The contract
provided that Ramer would pay $100 for each additional day of occupancy
beyond July 6, but did not permit Cates to remove Ramer’s personal
property without forcible entry and detainer proceedings.

¶3 Ramer did not remove her personal property by the agreed-
upon date, and on July 10, Cates removed the property from the home and
placed it on the curb outside. It rained in Kingman shortly thereafter and
the property was damaged. Ramer eventually moved her property to a
storage unit.

¶4 The superior court found Cates breached the contract by
moving Ramer’s property outside of the home and awarded Ramer $5,000
in damages. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes
(“A.R.S.”) Sections 12-2101(A)(1) and 12-120.21(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶5 Ramer argues the superior court erred by only awarding her
$5,000 in damages. Specifically, she argues she should have been
compensated for both the additional damage to her personal property she
discovered after the trial and emotional damages. She also argues that the
court incorrectly weighed the evidence to calculate her damages.

¶6 We will affirm the superior court’s computation of damages
if any reasonable evidence in the record supports the ultimate facts
underlying the amount. Gonzales v. City of Phoenix, 203 Ariz. 152, 153, ¶ 2
(2002). The superior court has “wide latitude” in determining the value of
damaged goods, and may consider the cost of the property, how long the
property was used, its condition when damaged, and “any other factors

2
 RAMER v. CATES
Decision of the Court

that will assist in assessing the value to the owner at the time of the loss or
injury.” Devine v. Buckler, 124 Ariz. 286, 287 (App. 1979). In its order, the
court noted that Ramer failed to present sufficient evidence to prove the
damage amounted to her requested amount of $37,000, “or anything close
to it[]” and determined the $5,000 amount was reasonable based on the
evidence presented. Ramer did not provide a transcript of the bench trial;
thus, we must assume that the proceedings below support the superior
court’s judgment. See Kohler v. Kohler, 211 Ariz. 106, 108, n.1 (App. 2005);
ARCAP 11(b) (requiring that parties order transcripts they desire to be
included in the record on appeal).

¶7 Ramer disputes the superior court’s damages computation
and argues for the inclusion of emotional distress damages. She cites to the
photographs and list of damaged items she provided to the superior court
and argues that she was entitled to additional compensation. She does not,
however, provide any evidence suggesting an erroneous valuation of any
particular item or group of items or that the amount awarded was
insufficient to compensate for the damage. In the absence of a clear abuse
of discretion, we will not substitute our judgment for the superior court.

CONCLUSION

¶8 We affirm.

AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
FILED: AA

3