High Desert Healing, LLC et al. - Plaintiffs/Appellees’ Answering Brief and Appendix - Court of Appeals Division One No. 1 CA-CV 23-0195

Sep 15, 2026

Upload by Aditya

Plaintiffs/Appellees’ answering brief and appendix in Arizona Court of Appeals Division One addresses an appeal by CEC 141202761, LLC concerning a commercial lease assignment and related consent. The brief argues CEC unreasonably withheld written consent after High Desert requested approval due to a parent-company merger. It also contends the superior court correctly ruled for High Desert on the $500 fee issue and that any alleged breach was immaterial, supported by substantial evidence.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryLetters

FormatPDF

Pages208

Reading Time1 h 13 min

AccessFree to download

Table of Authorities

Introduction

Statement of Facts and Case

In 2018, CEC leased a commercial property to High Desert

The lease provided CEC could not unreasonably withhold written consent

High Desert requested written consent due to a parent-company merger

CEC gave pretextual reasons to deny consent

After a bench trial, the superior court found CEC unreasonably withheld consent

Judgment entered for High Desert

Statement of the Issues

Standard of Review

Argument Summary

Argument

CEC failed to supply transcripts, so the Court must assume trial evidence supported the ruling

The superior court correctly ruled for High Desert on the $500 fee

Substantial evidence supports unreasonably withheld consent

Substantial evidence supports no breach of the lease regarding the $500 fee

Any breach was immaterial

Go to Previous View Go to Table of Contents-Brief ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE HIGH DESERT HEALING, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. CEC 141202761, LLC, Defendant/Appellant. Court of Appeals Division One No. 1 CA-CV 23-0195 Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2021-016161 CV2021-053708 PLAINTIFFS/APPELLEES’ANSWERING BRIEF AND APPENDIX Paul A. Conant (012667) Melissa A. Emmel (023195) CONANT LAW FIRM, PLC 2398 E. Camelback Road, Suite 925 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 (602) 508-9010 [docket@conantlawfirm.com](docket@conantlawfirm.com) Eric M. Fraser (027241) John S. Bullock (034950) OSBORN MALEDON, P.A. 2929 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2000 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 (602) 640-9000 [efraser@omlaw.com](efraser@omlaw.com)[ ](efraser@omlaw.com)[jbullock@omlaw.com](jbullock@omlaw.com) Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Appellees Go to Previous View Click on the headings below to go to corresponding page TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES....................................................................................6 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................10 STATEMENT OF FACTS AND CASE...............................................................11 I. In 2018, CEC leased a commercial property to High Desert................11 II. The lease provided CEC could not unreasonably withhold written consent of High Desert’s request to assign the lease...............12 III. High Desert requested CEC’s written consent because its parent company was merging with another company.........................15 IV. CEC gave several pretextual reasons for denying consent to obtain higher rent from High Desert.......................................................16 V. After a bench trial, the superior court found that CEC unreasonably withheld consent to seek higher rent from High Desert..................................................................................................21 VI. The superior court entered judgment for High Desert.........................26 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ...........................................................................27 STANDARD OF REVIEW ...................................................................................28 ARGUMENT SUMMARY ...................................................................................29 ARGUMENT..........................................................................................................33 I. Because CEC failed to supply any transcripts, the Court must assume that all trial evidence and argument would have supported the trial court’s ruling.............................................................33 II. The superior court correctly ruled for High Desert on the $500 fee.........................................................................................................34 Go to Previous View Click on the headings below to go to corresponding page A. Substantial evidence supported the superior court’s finding that CEC unreasonably withheld its approval to the assignment..................................................................................35 1. As a matter of law, CEC could not unreasonably withhold its consent to an assignment...............................35 (a) The lease’s plain terms prohibit CEC from unreasonably withholding approval........................35 (b) Under settled, law, a landlord cannot unreasonably or arbitrarily withhold consent to assignment of a lease................................36 2. Substantial evidence supported the superior court’s factual finding that CEC’s refusal was unreasonable...........................................................................37 B. Substantial evidence supports the superior court’s finding that High Desert did not breach the lease......................43 1. The lease does not require the $500 fee simultane

FAQs

What is the dispute in this answering brief?

The dispute concerns whether CEC unreasonably withheld written consent to a commercial lease assignment sought by High Desert after a parent-company merger.

Why does the brief say the Court should not reverse the trial court’s decision?

It argues CEC did not supply transcripts, requiring the Court to assume trial evidence supported the superior court’s ruling, and that substantial evidence supports the key findings.

How does the brief address the $500 fee issue?

The brief asserts the lease does not require the fee to be simultaneous with the written request, and that High Desert submitted its written request “together with” the $500 fee, so no breach occurred.

Sep 15, 2026

Upload by Aditya