Fidelity National v. Arnold

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE AGENCY, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs/Appellees,

v.

RAQUEL SHAKIRA ARNOLD, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CV 24-0810
FILED 07-15-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CV2024-001877
The Honorable Brian Kaiser, Judge Pro Tempore

APPEAL DISMISSED

COUNSEL

Fidelity National Law Group, Phoenix
By Brian J. Cosper
Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellees

Raquel Shakira Arnold, Litchfield Park
Defendant/Appellant
 FIDELITY NATIONAL, et al. v. ARNOLD
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani and Judge Angela K. Paton joined.

T H U M M A, Judge:

¶1 Defendant Raquel Shakira Arnold, seeking to act on behalf of
defendant R C Domain Trust (Trust), appeals the entry of default judgment
in favor of plaintiff Fidelity National Title Agency, Inc. (Fidelity) and
against the Trust. For the reasons that follow, the appeal is dismissed.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Arnold, along with Christopher McDowell, entered a contract
with Richmond American Homes of Arizona, Inc. (Richmond) where
Arnold and McDowell would purchase a home in Goodyear, Arizona for
$669,995. Richmond retained Fidelity as the escrow agent. Arnold and
McDowell delivered to Fidelity two purportedly certified checks for the full
purchase price. In reliance upon those checks, on January 29, 2024, Fidelity
recorded a deed conveying the property from Richmond to Arnold and
McDowell, who took possession of the property that same day.

¶3 On January 30, 2024, Fidelity discovered both checks were
fake. That same day, Fidelity recorded an affidavit noting the deed
conveying the property to Arnold and McDowell had been recorded in
error given the lack of payment. Fidelity then filed this case against Arnold
and McDowell seeking to clear title and recover damages.

¶4 On January 31, 2024, Arnold and McDowell recorded a quit
claim deed purporting to transfer the property to the Trust, with Arnold as
Trustee. Fidelity amended the original complaint to include the Trust as a
defendant.

¶5 When Arnold and McDowell failed to plead or otherwise
respond to the complaint, Fidelity filed an application for entry of default.
Arnold and McDowell then filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice,
arguing they “no longer ha[d] rights, title, interest or security interests in
[the] property” and attached affidavits in which they both declared they
had no rights in the property. Arnold then filed a second motion to dismiss,
asserting once again she and McDowell had no interest or equitable rights

2
 FIDELITY NATIONAL, et al. v. ARNOLD
Decision of the Court

in the property. Although the court denied both motions to dismiss, based
on the affidavits, the court issued an order declaring Arnold and McDowell
had no interest in the property.

¶6 Fidelity then filed an application for entry of default as to the
Trust for failure to plead or otherwise defend the action. When the Trust
made no filing in response and did not otherwise defend, the default
entered, and Fidelity filed a motion for default judgment. Fidelity properly
notified the Trust, through Arnold, of the hearing on the motion for entry
of default judgment. After holding a hearing, where the Trust did not
appear, the superior court granted the motion and entered default
judgment against the Trust, ordering the title to the property be quieted in
the name of Richmond.

¶7 Arnold then filed a motion to set aside default judgment,
purportedly on behalf of the Trust. Before the superior court ruled on that
motion, Arnold filed a notice of appeal on behalf of the Trust.

DISCUSSION

¶8 Arnold purports to assert, on behalf of the Trust, that the
superior court made several errors. Arnold, however, is not authorized to
represent the Trust and cannot challenge rulings against the Trust on
appeal. See Ariz. Sup. Ct. R. 33(c). Arnold is not an active member of the
state bar under Arizona Supreme Court Rules 31(a)(1) or specially admitted
to practice under Rules 31.3, 38 or 39. See Ariz. Sup. Ct. R. 31.1(a). As such,
she cannot represent the Trust in these proceedings. See Ariz. Sup. Ct. R.
33(c).

¶9 Because Arnold was not authorized to file the motion to set
aside the default judgment on behalf of the Trust, that motion was
improper. See id. Similarly, Arnold was not authorized to file a notice of
appeal and opening brief on behalf of the Trust. See id. That lack of authority
is grounds for dismissal if, as here, the defect is not cured. See Boydston v.
Strole Dev. Co., 193 Ariz. 47, 50-51 ¶¶ 14-15 (1998). Because the appeal was
not properly filed, and the motion to set aside was not properly filed, the
appeal is dismissed, and the default judgment is final.1

1 Given the putative appeal was never properly perfected, Fidelity has not

shown this court has jurisdiction to impose requested sanctions against
Arnold, who is not a party and has not properly represented a party. See
ARCAP 25.

3
 FIDELITY NATIONAL, et al. v. ARNOLD
Decision of the Court

CONCLUSION

¶10 The appeal is dismissed, and the default judgment is final.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

4