Opinion
No. 1 CA-CV 11-0577
05-31-2012
CORONADO ACCOUNTS MANAGEMENT COMPANY, L.L.C., Plaintiff/Appellee, v. ISAAC PEREZ, Defendant/Appellant.
Hammeroff Law Group PLC By David E. Hameroff, Eric Thomae and Garret M. Culver Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Appellees Isaac Perez Defendant/Appellant In Propria Persona
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24
MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not for Publication - Rule 28, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure)
Appeal from the Superior Court in Yuma County
Cause No. S1400CV201100538
The Honorable Lisa W. Bleich, Judge Pro Tempore
AFFIRMED
Hammeroff Law Group PLC
By David E. Hameroff, Eric Thomae and Garret M. Culver
Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Appellees
Tucson
Isaac Perez
Defendant/Appellant In Propria Persona
Yuma BROWN, Judge
¶1 Isaac Perez appeals from an order granting summary judgment in favor of Coronado Accounts Management Company, LLC ("Coronado") on an action to collect a debt. Finding no genuine issue of material fact, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
¶2 Compass Bank provided financing to Perez in March 2005 in connection with the purchase of a vehicle. Perez fell behind on the scheduled payments, and Compass forwarded the account to Consolidated Asset Recovery System for repossession in July 2007. Perez informed the repossession agent the vehicle had been stolen. Unable to repossess the vehicle, Compass charged off the unpaid balance as bad debt in August 2007. Compass sold the account to Absolute Resolutions Corp., which subsequently sold the account to Coronado.
¶3 In April 2011, Coronado sued Perez for breach of contract and later moved for summary judgment. Coronado also filed a motion to amend the caption, explaining that due to an "inadvertent clerical error" the plaintiff had been improperly identified as Western States Financial Management, LLC. Coronado asserted that amendment of the caption would be consistent with its initial disclosure statement identifying assignment of the account to Coronado and that Perez would not be prejudiced by allowing correction of the name of the plaintiff. Following oral argument, the trial court granted Coronado's motion for summary judgment and its motion to amend the caption. This timely appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
¶4 Summary judgment may be granted when "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Ariz. R. Civ. P. 56(c). In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, we determine de novo whether any genuine issues of material fact exist and whether the superior court properly applied the law. Eller Media Co. v. City of Tucson, 198 Ariz. 127, 130, ¶ 4, 7 P.3d 136, 139 (App. 2000). Summary judgment in favor of either party is appropriate only "if the facts produced in support of the [other party's] claim or defense have so little probative value, given the quantum of evidence required, that reasonable people could not agree with the conclusion advanced by the proponent of the claim or defense." Orme Sch. v. Reeves, 166 Ariz. 301, 309, 802 P.2d 1000, 1008 (1990).
¶5 Perez argues that the trial court erred in finding him liable to Coronado. He asserts that the bill of sale from Compass contains "numbers of numerous accounts that do not specifically acknowledge [him] or [his] account," and the bank representative's signature was not notarized. However, Perez does not dispute that he obtained financing from Compass or that he defaulted on the payments. Moreover, Perez has cited no authority, nor are we aware of any, for the proposition that a signature on a bill of sale must be notarized.
¶6 Perez also challenges the trial court's amendment of the caption, expressing his confusion as to the plaintiff's identity. Coronado's motion to amend the caption explained that counsel inadvertently inserted the name of Western States Financial Management, also a frequent client of counsel, in the caption, but that all relevant dates and amounts in question remained the same. The motion also indicated that in the initial disclosure pursuant to Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 26.1, counsel for Coronado had previously included bills of sale showing the assignment of Perez's account to Coronado. Perez did not oppose the motion nor did he challenge the validity of the assignments. Because Perez has not shown he was prejudiced by amendment of the caption, the trial court did not err in granting Coronado's request. See Hopper v. Indus. Comm'n, 27 Ariz. App. 732, 737, 558 P.2d 927, 932 (1976) (affirming decision to allow amendment of caption where respondents had notice of underlying claim and were not prejudiced by defect in petition).
¶7 Finally, Perez asserts that because the vehicle was stolen, Compass should have pursued payment directly from his insurance company. But the insurance policy was a contract between Perez and his insurance company, and thus any claim for reimbursement for the vehicle's loss would lie with Perez, not Compass or Coronado. See First Sec. Bank v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. , 12 Ariz. App. 476, 480, 472 P.2d 87, 91 (1970) (holding that judgment creditor of an insured who had failed to file suit against insurance carrier had no contractual rights under the insurance policy and could not garnish the insurance carrier). Thus, the trial court properly determined that Perez remains liable on the debt.
CONCLUSION
¶8 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Coronado.
_________________
MICHAEL J. BROWN, Presiding Judge
CONCURRING:
_________________
MARGARET H. DOWNIE, Judge
_________________
ANN A. SCOTT TIMMER, Judge