• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
 
Arizona Court of Appeals
Division One
 
BONNIE CLUSIAU,
Plaintiff-Appellee
,
vs.
 CLUSIAU ENTERPRISES, INC.
 Defendant-Appellant.
No. 1- CA-CV 09-0300APPELLANT’S OPENINGBRIEF
 
ON
 
APPEAL
 
FROM
 
THE
 
MARICOPA
 
COUNTY
 
SUPERIOR
 
COURT
H
ON
.
 
L
OUIS
A.
 
A
RANETA
,
 
J
UDGE
 S
UPERIOR
C
OURT
C
ASE
N
UMBER
:
 
CV
 
2008-091768
Brian K. Stanley
State Bar No. 004619
 
 Attorney & Counselor at Law
3625 N. 16
th
Street, Suite 119Phoenix, Arizona 85016-6446(602) 956-9201
 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellant Clusiau Enterprises, Inc.
June 30, 2009
 
- i -
Arizona Court of Appeals
Division One
 
Bonnie Clusiau,
Plaintiff-Appellee
,- vs. -Clusiau Enterprises, Inc.,
 Defendant-Appellant 
.No. 1 CA-CV 09-0300
APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF
CONTENTSTABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED
.................................................... iii
 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
............................................................... 1
II. FACTS
.......................................................................................................... 1
 III. ISSUE PRESENTED
.................................................................................. 6
 IV. ARGUMENT
A. The 2007 Small-Claims Judgment Was Properly DeniedIssue-Preclusive Effect in the Present Action.. ................................. 7B. The Trial Court Erred in Attempting to Enforce the MemoDated 4-2-86. ................................................................................... 111. The Evidence of the Memo Dated 4-2-86 Did NotConform to the Requirements of A
RIZ
.R.C
IV
.P. 56 (e). ...... 112. The Memo Dated 4-2-86, If It Could Be Accepted asEvidence, Would Appear to Represent an Attempt toMake a Codicil to Arthur Clusiau’s Will, But It Is Nota Holograph, And It Is Not Witnessed, And So CannotBe Given Effect. .................................................................... 17
 
- ii -
3. The Memo Dated 4-2-86, Even If It Might BeAccepted as Evidence, Clearly Does Not Evidence AnyContract, And Certainly Not One Made by Plaintiff with Defendant. .................................................................... 214. Even Accepting the Memo Dated 4-2-86 as EvidenceAnd Arbitrarily Assuming That It Evidences an“Agreement” to Which Defendant Is a Party, There IsNo Evidence The Agreement Was Supported byConsideration. ....................................................................... 22
V. CONCLUSION
.......................................................................................... 24
APPENDICES
A.
 
Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 28, ExcerptsB.
 
A.R.S. T. 22, Chap. 5 – Selected SectionsC.
 
Memo dated 4-2-86 (printed transcription)
CERTIFICATES
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...