FARMER v. SCHLOSS

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE

JOSEPH FARMER, Plaintiff/Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL SCHLOSS; and CLARK & SCHLOSS FAMILY LAW,
Defendants/Appellees.

No. 1 CA-CV 25-0989
FILED 06-23-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CV2025-012582
The Honorable Scott A. Blaney, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Joseph F. Farmer, Phoenix
Plaintiff/Appellant

Buchalter LLP, Scottsdale
By Buzzi L. Shindler, Stephen F. Best
Counsel for Defendant/Appellee
FARMER v. SCHLOSS, et al.
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Michael S. Catlett and Judge Angela K. Paton joined.

P E R K I N S, Judge:

¶1 Joseph Farmer appeals the dismissal with prejudice of his
lawsuit against Michael Schloss and Clark & Schloss Family Law, P.C.
(collectively “Schloss”). Because Farmer has not shown error, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 This case arises out of Farmer’s 2018 dissolution proceedings
when Schloss represented Farmer’s ex-wife. During the proceedings,
Farmer twice failed to submit a hair follicle for a drug test because he had
shaved all his body hair. In a court filing, Farmer’s ex-wife alleged that he
must have shaved his entire body only to avoid testing and later submitted
photos of the previously unshaven Farmer as evidence. The court found
Farmer “dirty” for illicit substances and ordered twice-a-week drug testing.

¶3 In 2024 or 2025, Farmer found one of his old cell phones with
his ex-wife’s email account still logged in and read privileged emails
between her and Schloss. In the emails, Schloss discussed selecting only
photos of Farmer showing no evidence of shaved body hair to “solidify the
narrative” he never shaved his body and thus must have done so to evade
the drug test. The emails contained other photos of Farmer’s shaved arms
and chest. In April 2025, Farmer sued Schloss for intentional infliction of
emotional distress, fraud, and loss of parental relationship with his
children, all stemming from Schloss allegedly fraudulently misrepresenting
to the court that Farmer never shaved his body while knowingly possessing
evidence showing otherwise.

¶4 Schloss moved to dismiss, and the court granted the motion,
finding that Farmer’s claims were time-barred because the statute of
limitations had long expired. Farmer timely appealed. We have jurisdiction.
A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(1).

2
FARMER v. SCHLOSS, et al.
Decision of the Court

DISCUSSION

¶5 On appeal, Farmer argues the superior court failed to toll the
statute of limitations on his fraud claim because it did not apply the
discovery rule under Arizona Revised Statutes Section 12-543(3). Farmer
waived any challenge to the dismissal of his other claims by not raising
them on appeal. Van Loan v. Van Loan, 116 Ariz. 272, 274 (1977). And
although Farmer’s claims rely on privileged attorney-client
communications, Schloss never argued the emails were inadmissible.
Schloss thus waived any such argument.

¶6 “We review the dismissal of a complaint under [Arizona Rule
of Civil Procedure] 12(b)(6) de novo.” Sanchez-Ravuelta v. Yavapai County,
259 Ariz. 517, 525, ¶ 25 (2025). We “assume the truth of all well-pleaded
factual allegations and indulge all reasonable inferences from those facts,
but mere conclusory statements are insufficient.” Coleman v. City of Mesa,
230 Ariz. 352, 356, ¶ 9 (2012). We may affirm for any reason supported by
the record. Motley v. Simmons, 256 Ariz. 317, 321, ¶ 10 (App. 2023).

¶7 Under the discovery rule, fraud claims must be brought
within three years, but that time does not begin to run until the aggrieved
party discovers the facts constituting fraud. A.R.S. § 12-543(3). Put
differently, the claim accrues when “the plaintiff knows or with reasonable
diligence should know” of the defendant’s wrongful conduct. Doe v. Roe,
191 Ariz. 313, 322, ¶ 29 (1998). A plaintiff cannot hide behind ignorance
when reasonable investigation would have alerted him to the claim. ELM
Ret. Ctr., LP v. Callaway, 226 Ariz. 287, 290, ¶ 12 (App. 2010).

¶8 The superior court concluded that the discovery rule would
not help Farmer’s claims because he necessarily knew of his injury and the
act causing it at the time of the original court proceedings. Farmer was
present during the dissolution proceedings when Schloss made his
allegedly false arguments and would have known the statements were false
and damaging to him. And the court found the emails discovered about
seven years later did not contain any new material facts.

¶9 The record supports the court’s findings and shows Farmer
must have known then that Schloss allegedly misrepresented his personal
grooming habits. And if Farmer was captured in other photos that would
have refuted Schloss, Farmer would have known that as well. See id. (“[A]
tort claim accrues when a plaintiff knows or with reasonable diligence
should know of the defendant’s wrongful conduct.” (cleaned up)). In short,

3
FARMER v. SCHLOSS, et al.
Decision of the Court

Farmer did not “discover” the alleged fraud any later than the original
dissolution proceedings.

¶10 The superior court did not err in concluding that even
applying the discovery rule, Farmer’s claim accrued when the allegedly
offending conduct occurred—about seven years before he filed his
complaint.

¶11 Schloss requests attorney fees on appeal under Section
12-349(A), claiming Farmer’s suit lacked substantial justification because no
reasonable jury could conclude Farmer’s claims had merit.

¶12 Under Section 12-349(A), the “court shall assess reasonable
attorney fees” if a party “[b]rings or defends a claim without substantial
justification.” A.R.S. § 12-349(A)(1). A claim without substantial
justification is one that is groundless and not made in good faith. A.R.S. §
12-349(F). A party presents a groundless claim when it cannot present a
rational argument supported by evidence or law. Ariz. Republican Party v.
Richer, 257 Ariz. 237, 243, ¶ 15 (2024). This does not include “long shot”
claims that are at least “fairly debatable.” Id. A claim is not made in good
faith if it is (1) groundless, and (2) the party knows or should have known,
or is indifferent to its groundlessness, but asserts it anyway. Id. at 248, ¶ 38.
Both prongs of the test are reviewed objectively. Id. at 243, 249, ¶¶ 15, 40.
We cannot conclude Farmer knew, should have known, or was indifferent
to the invalidity of his claims and we thus decline to award Schloss attorney
fees on appeal.

CONCLUSION

¶13 We affirm.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

4