Cited by

She also does not challenge the 1 Our supreme court later held that § 12-341.01(A) applies unless it “effectively conflicts with an express contractual provision governing recovery of attorney’s fees.” American Power Products, Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc., ¶¶ 13–14 (2017) ().

Power Prods., Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc., ¶ 14 (2017) ().

Power Products, Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc., ¶ 14 (2017) ().

Rather, § 12-341.01 “is inapplicable by its terms if it effectively conflicts with an express contractual provision governing recovery of attorney’s fees.” , (disagreeing with Connor’s broad statement and observing that Sweis “did not hold that any express contractual provision for attorney’s fees, however worded, ‘preempts’ A.R.S.

that may provide for attorney fees.” (recovery of attorneys’ fees on other legal bases, such as A.R.S.

as altering, prohibiting or restricting present or future contracts or statutes that may provide for attorney fees.”); Connor v. Cal-Az Props., Inc., , 55 (fee-shifting statute inapplicable given that parties contractually provided for attorneys’ fees) ( , ); , (“Sweis v. Chatwin did not hold that any express contractual provision for attorney’s fees, however worded, ‘preempts’ A.R.S.

¶ 41 , a husband and wife executed a property settlement agreement and agreed to waive any rights they had to share in each other's estate.

“[W]e consider whether there exist genuine issues of material fact and whether the trial court correctly applied the substantive law.”