Cited by

In cases that the Arizona Supreme Court decided before this court existed, when no answering brief was filed, that court developed a general approach that when a debatable issue is raised on appeal, the court would “assume that the failure to file an answering brief is a confession of reversible error on the part of the appellee.”

Although an appellee’s failure to file an answering brief is generally deemed a confession of error if the appeal raises debatable issues, (citations omitted), this principle does not apply to issues relating to the best interests of children.

In cases that the Arizona Supreme Court decided before this court existed, when no answering brief was filed, that court developed a general approach that when a debatable issue is raised on appeal, the court would “assume that the failure to file an answering brief is a confession of reversible error on the part of the appellee.”

When an appeal raises debatable issues unrelated to a child’s best interests, we “will assume that the failure to file an answering brief is a 3 BANKS v. BAILEY Decision of the Court confession of reversible error on the part of the appellee.” see also In re Mayberry v. Stambaugh, 1 CA-CV 23-0289 FC, 2024 WL 1282653, at *1-5, ¶¶ 5-20 (Ariz. App. Mar.

While an appellee’s failure to file an answering brief is generally deemed a confession of error if the appeal raises debatable issues, (citations omitted), this principle does not apply to issues relating to a child’s best interests.

When an appeal raises debatable issues unrelated to a child’s best interests, we “will assume that the failure to file an answering brief is a confession of reversible error on the part of the appellee.” see also Matter of Mayberry v. Stambaugh, 1 CA-CV 23-0289 FC, 2024 WL 1282653, at *1–5, ¶¶ 5–20 (Ariz. App. Mar.

If an appellant’s opening brief and the record reveal a debatable question and no good cause appears for the appellee’s failure to file, we will assume “a confession of reversible error on the part of the appellee.” –21 (1927)

When an appeal raises debatable issues, and there is no good cause for the appellee’s failure to respond, we “will assume that the failure to file an answering brief is a confession of reversible error on the part of the appellee.”

If an appeal raises a debatable issue and there appears to be no good cause for the appellee’s failure to appear, we “will assume that the failure to file an answering brief is a confession of reversible error on the part of the appellee.”

See (observing that where an appeal raises debatable issues, reviewing courts “will assume that the failure to file an answering brief is a confession of reversible error on the part of the appellee.”).

If an appeal raises debatable issues and there appears to be no good cause for the appellee’s failure to appear, we “will assume that the failure to file an answering brief is a confession of reversible error on the part of the appellee.”

If an appeal raises debatable issues and there appears to be no good cause for the appellee’s failure to appear, we “will assume that the failure to file an answering brief is a confession of reversible error on the part of the appellee.”

Our supreme court has held in cases with debatable issues, “a failure to file an answering brief is equivalent to a confession of error by appellee.” (reiterating that our Supreme Court will “assume that failure to file an answering brief is a confession of reversible error on the part of appellee.”).

Town of Cottonwood v. Evans, 13 Ariz.App.

We will assume that the failure to file an answering brief constitutes a confession of reversible error, , , if the reasons presented for reversal are “debatable.” It is, however, our duty to examine the record to determine whether there are debatable issues, Civil Service Employees Ins.

National Exhibition Co. v. Marx, 9 Ariz.App.

National Exhibition Co. v. Marx, 9 Ariz.App.