Cited by

P. 56(a); accord Villa De Jardines Ass’n v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, –5 ¶ 5 (App. 2011).

Villa De Jardines Ass’n v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, ¶ 12 (App. 2011).

Villa De Jardines Ass’n v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, ¶ 12 (App. 2011).

ould evaluate the absence of good faith under § 12-349(A)(1) objectively—consistent with the Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 11 standard—which “is not based on whether an attorney subjectively pursues claims in good faith, but instead is judged on an objective standard of what a professional, competent attorney would do in similar circumstances.” See Villa De Jardines Ass’n v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, ¶ 14 (App. 2011) (quoting Standage v. Jaburg & Wilk, P.C., ); accord Goldman, 248 Ariz. at 531 ¶ 68

Villa De Jardines Ass’n v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, ¶ 12 (App. 2011).

See Villa De Jardines Ass’n v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, (Rule 25 sanctions discretionary).

at (c), “when: (1) there was no reasonable inquiry into the basis for a pleading or motion; (2) there was no chance of success under existing precedent; and (3) there was no reasonable argument to extend, modify or reverse the controlling law.” Villa De Jardines Ass’n v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, ¶ 13 (App. 2011) ( ¶ 29 (App. 2003)).

Villa de Jardines Ass’n v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, ¶ 25 (App. 2011).

See Villa De Jardines Ass’n v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, ¶ 17 (App. 2011).

Villa de Jardines Ass’n v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, ¶ 26 n.10 (App. 2011).

Citing Villa De Jardines Ass’n v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, ¶ 13 (App. 2011), the Suttos contend sanctions are warranted because: “[(]1) there was no reasonable inquiry into the basis for [the appeal]; (2) there was no chance of success under existing precedent; and (3) there was no reasonable argument to extend, modify, or reverse the controlling law .

Villa De Jardines Ass'n v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, ¶ 26, n.10 (App. 2011).

¶39 Regarding ARCAP 25, “[w]e impose sanctions under ARCAP 25 only ‘with great reservation.’” Villa de Jardines Ass’n v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, ¶ 26 (App. 2011) (quoting Ariz. Tax Res.

See Villa De Jardines Ass’n v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, ¶ 25 (App. 2011); see also Boone, 145 Ariz. at 241 (“[C]ounsel is required only to make an investigation [of facts and law] which is reasonable under the circumstances that exist at the time of filing the pleading.”); (the sanctions authorized “are discreti

DISCUSSION ¶5 “On appeal from a grant of summary judgment, we view all facts and reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was entered.” Villa De Jardines Ass’n v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, ¶ 2 (App. 2011).

9 IN RE $15,379 U.S. CURRENCY Opinion of the Court 276 P.3d at 44; Villa De Jardines Ass’n v. Flagstar Bank, FSB

We look to the plain meaning of the statute’s language and “construe statutes so as to give effect to the whole.” Villa de Jardines Ass’n v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, ¶ 7 (App. 2011).

Villa De Jardines Ass’n v. Flagstaff Bank, FSB, ¶ 7 (App. 2011); (“we presume the legislature expressed its meaning in as clear a manner as possible.”).

Villa de Jardines Ass’n v. Flagstar Bank, n.10, ¶ 26, n.10 (App. 2011).

“We first look to the language of the statute and give the words used their plain 5 RASH v. TOWN OF MAMMOTH Opinion of the Court meaning, unless context demands otherwise.” Villa de Jardines Ass’n v. Flagstar Bank, FSB

Villa de Jardines Ass’n v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, YANNI v. TUCKER PLUMBING Opinion of the Court 291 (App. 2011).

Villa de Jardines Ass’n v. Flagstar Bank, FSB

Our consideration of the court’s summary-judgment ruling is therefore appropriate as part of our review of the final judgment.1 ¶6 Summary judgment is proper only when “‘there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Villa de Jardines Ass’n v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, quoting Airfreight Express Ltd. v. Evergreen Air Ctr., Inc.

4 accord Villa De Jardines Ass’n v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, -92 (App. 2011).

See Villa De Jardines Ass'n v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, , ___