Morgal v. Stobbs

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ALLAN K. MORGAL, Plaintiff/Appellant,

v.

GERALD M. STOBBS, Defendant/Appellee.

No. 1 CA-CV 25-0081
FILED 01-27-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CV2008-026481
The Honorable Mary Collins Cronin, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Allan K. Morgal, Phoenix
Plaintiff/Appellant

Leavell & Rivera, PLC, Phoenix
By Thomas Leavell
Counsel for Defendant/Appellee
 MORGAL v. STOBBS
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Cynthia J. Bailey delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Daniel J. Kiley and Judge D. Steven Williams joined.

B A I L E Y, Judge:

¶1 Allan Morgal appeals the superior court’s order granting
Gerald Stobbs’ motion to vacate judgment. For the following reasons, we
affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In 2008, Morgal sued Stobbs for various landlord-tenant
claims. After Stobbs failed to answer the complaint, Morgal moved for a
default judgment seeking “$34,411.71 in damages, $19,950.00 in punitive
and $1,434.00 [in] costs plus pre-judgement [sic] interest from August
2005.”

¶3 The superior court entered a default judgment against Stobbs
and directed Morgal “to file all evidence regarding damages.” Morgal
informed the court he had submitted all the evidence available to him.
After receiving no response from Stobbs, the court entered judgment in July
2010 (the “2010 Judgment”). It awarded Morgal $19,261.40, including
$986.19 in costs, with interest to accrue at 10% per annum from the date of
judgment.

¶4 Stobbs filed a motion to set aside the default judgment in
January 2012, which the court denied. Three years later, Morgal filed a
judgment renewal affidavit which admitted that “a payment of $23,250.00
has been made on June 26, 2012.” The renewal affidavit also alleged Stobbs
owed an additional $10,465.59 plus interest from June 3, 2015, for “costs
accrued when the debtor avoided service of the judgement [sic] and
supplied misleading information to the process server forcing the need for
a sister state judgement [sic] in California county of San Diego.” For
reasons unclear from the record, the court took no action on Morgal’s
renewal affidavit.

¶5 Almost a decade later in February 2024, Morgal again filed a
motion to renew the 2010 Judgment, which the superior court granted the
next month. In October 2024, Stobbs retained counsel and moved to vacate
the judgment on the grounds that it was satisfied by his 2012 payment.

2
 MORGAL v. STOBBS
Decision of the Court

¶6 Morgal objected and argued that the 2012 payment did not
fully satisfy the judgment, as Stobbs still owed $10,465.59. The court held
oral argument on the matter and issued an order granting Stobbs’ motion
to vacate the judgment, finding the judgment was fully satisfied.

¶7 Morgal timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) § 12-2101(A)(2).

DISCUSSION

¶8 Morgal argues the superior court erred in vacating the 2010
Judgment. We review the court’s determination of whether a judgment is
satisfied for an abuse of discretion. City of Phoenix v. Geyler, 144 Ariz. 323,
328 (1985).

¶9 We note that Stobbs failed to file an answering brief. When
debatable issues are raised, we may treat the failure to file an answering
brief as a confession of reversible error. See Bugh v. Bugh, 125 Ariz. 190, 191
(App. 1980). But there is no debatable issue here because Morgal waived
his argument by failing to comply with applicable court rules. Morgal’s
brief provided no record citations or supporting legal authorities, instead
merely attaching the memorandum of points and authorities he filed in the
superior court in opposition to Stobbs’ motion to set aside the renewed
judgment. See ARCAP 13(a)(7)(A) (requiring that briefs contain “citations
of legal authorities and appropriate references to the portions of the record
on which the appellant relies”). His failure to comply with court rules
waives his unsupported arguments. See In re Aubuchon, 233 Ariz. 62, 64-65,
¶ 6 (2013).

¶10 Since there is no debatable issue, we decline to grant relief
based upon confession of error. Clay v. Geiser, No. 1 CA-CV 25-0241, 2025
WL 3707200, *3, ¶ 12 (Ariz. App. Dec. 22, 2025) (mem. decision) (citing
Welch v. United Mut. Benefit Ass’n, 48 Ariz. 173, 174 (1936)); see also Carter v.
State ex rel. Eyman, 5 Ariz. App. 415, 415 (1967).

¶11 Waiver aside, Morgal’s argument is clearly resolved by the
record. After the superior court considered the written motions and oral
argument in December 2024, it found the 2010 Judgment was “fully
satisfied as shown by the photocopy of the Cashier’s Check #1124806642
issued on June 25, 2012, in the amount of $23,250.00.” Moreover, Morgal
provided no hearing transcript as required under Arizona Rule of Civil
Appellate Procedure 11(c). “When a party fails to include necessary items,
we assume they would support the court’s findings and conclusions.” Baker
v. Baker, 183 Ariz. 70, 73 (App. 1995) (citation omitted); accord ARCAP

3
 MORGAL v. STOBBS
Decision of the Court

11(c)(1)(B). The superior court did not abuse its discretion in finding the
2010 Judgment satisfied.

CONCLUSION

¶12 We affirm.

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

4