Background
Sherri Strole lived in an RV park owned by Mark Wirth and managed by Ben Williams. Bonnie King was both an employee and a resident of the park. Strole petitioned for separate domestic-violence orders of protection against all three, alleging unauthorized entry and access to her home, interference with utilities, stalking connected to eviction notices, vandalism or theft, and collusion with police and other tenants.
Strole argued that the defendants’ ownership, employment, or residence at the RV park created a relationship sufficient for domestic-violence protection. She alternatively asked the superior court to approve an expanded injunction against harassment if it declined to issue domestic-violence orders of protection. The superior court denied all three petitions, and Strole appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. Arizona’s domestic-violence statute applies only when an enumerated offense occurs between people in one of the qualifying relationships listed in A.R.S. § 13-3601(A). Strole lived alone, and the defendants were her landlord, the property manager, and a fellow tenant—not cohabitants of her personal residence. Landlord-tenant relationships and employment within a residential community are not among the statute’s qualifying categories.
The court rejected Strole’s request to treat a landlord’s access, control, and influence over a residence as “functional cohabitation.” Courts cannot extend a statute beyond the fair and reasonable meaning of its text, and any expansion of domestic-violence protection orders to cover such relationships must come from the Legislature. The court also held that Strole waived her remaining claims—including due-process, recusal, denial-of-pro-bono-counsel, and alleged vexatious-conduct claims—because she supplied no supporting authority, factual context, or adequate record citations.
Key Takeaways
- A landlord, property manager, or fellow resident does not qualify for a domestic-violence order of protection merely because that person has access to or influence over the claimant’s residence.
- Arizona courts may not expand the qualifying relationships expressly listed in A.R.S. § 13-3601; a person outside those relationships may instead seek an injunction against harassment when the statutory requirements are met.
- Self-represented litigants must follow the same appellate briefing rules as attorneys, and inadequately developed claims may be treated as waived.
- The defendants’ failure to file answering briefs did not require reversal because the record supported the rulings and Strole raised no debatable issue.
Why It Matters
The decision draws a firm line between domestic-violence protection orders and other forms of protective relief under Arizona law. Control over housing or residence-related access, without one of the relationships specified by statute, does not establish the relationship required for a domestic-violence order of protection.
The memorandum decision is not precedential under Arizona Supreme Court Rule 111(c), but it illustrates the statutory and briefing obstacles litigants face when seeking domestic-violence protection against landlords, property employees, or neighboring tenants.