In Perry Boser (individually and on behalf of Theresa Dannielle Boser, deceased, and on behalf of all statutory beneficiaries) v. Jason Lee Wade, No. 1 CA-CV 15-0127 (Arizona App. Dec. 8, 2016), the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, considered the petitioner’s appeal of the civil court’s authorization for release of a bond that Nicole Silvey posted on Ware’s behalf in a criminal case to satisfy damages in a judgment against Ware in a related civil action filed by Perry Boser. Due to lack of jurisdiction, the Court dismissed the appeal.
Brief order of events: The Defendant/Appellant, Jason Lee Ware killed the deceased, Theresa Dannielle Boser, in an auto accident and was charged with endangerment and manslaughter. Nicole Silvey, Ware’s sister, posted a $150,000 cash bond while Ware’s trial was pending, in order to gain him release. Perry Boser, the deceased surviving spouse, filed a wrongful death action against Ware.
Trial court: Ware failed to answer or comply with discovery requirements, resulting in a default judgment which awarded over three million dollars in damages to Boser. Boser then requested release of the bond posted in Ware’s criminal case to be offset against damages awarded in the wrongful death judgment. The Superior Court judge in the related wrongful death case held Boser’s request in abeyance to be determined by Judge Warner, the judge in the related wrongful death case. Boser responded by filing a request for release of the bond in the wrongful death case alleging that the bond was Ware’s property and should be assigned to Boser to satisfy the civil judgment because Silvey “testified that she received this (bond) money from Mr. Ware’s settlement.”
Judge Warner denied that request and eight months later, Boser filed a request to reconsider. Judge Warner ruled that the Court would issue and order to show cause so that each claimant of the cash bond could be heard on the matter, and obligated Silvey and Ware to “show cause why the bond should not be released (to Boser).”
The Court contended that “mere dissatisfaction with the result of a judgment is insufficient to constitute aggrievement for jurisdictional purposes.”
Chambers, 25 Ariz. App. at 107: An appellant is only aggrieved by a judgment when “it denies that party some personal or property right or imposes on that party some substantial burden or obligation.” Kerr v. Killian, 197 Ariz. 213, 216, ¶ 10 (App. 2000) and that the impact to the appellant should be “direct, substantial and immediate” pursuant to Douglas v. Governing Bd. of Window Rock Consol. Sch. Dist. No. 8, 221 Ariz. 104, 108, ¶ 7 (App. 2009).
Appeal: Ware’s appeal contended that the $150,000 bond money was Silvey’s property and that the court erred in failing to characterize that money as Silvey’s property. In that appeal, Ware conceded that he was not the aggrieved party since he had not been denied any property or personal right. Since he had not suffered injury resulting from the judgment, the Court stated that Ware was not entitled to appeal and dismissed Ware’s appeal.
Who do you call in Tucson in case of a personal injury or wrongful death?
If you are the victim of negligence or an accident resulting in personal injury, trust your case to a Tucson-based personal injury attorney. The Hameroff Law Firm is well regarded by the people who were victimized by others and entrusted our firm with recovering fair compensation for the trauma and damages they suffered and will continue to suffer from. Call David Hameroff, attorney, or Martha Morales at 520-792-4700 for a no-charge consultation about your case.