Lange v. Self

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

In re the Matter of:

JAMES LANGE, Petitioner/Appellee,

v.

RENE SELF, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CV 25-0094 FC
FILED 04-27-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. FN2024-092831
The Honorable Gregory J. Gnepper, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

APPEARANCES

Warner Angle Hallam Jackson & Formanek PLC, Phoenix
By Jerome K. Elwell, Phillip B. Visnansky, and Andrea M. Simbro
Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee

The Burgess Law Group, Phoenix
By Lindsi M. Weber
Counsel for Custom Care & Financial Solutions LLC in its capacity as court-
appointed Guardian for James E. Lange

Rene Self, Phoenix
Respondent/Appellant
LANGE v. SELF
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge David B. Gass delivered the decision of the court, in which
Judge Anni Hill Foster and Chief Judge Randall M. Howe joined.

G A S S, Judge:

¶1 Renee Self appeals the superior court’s order upholding the
order of protection for James E. Lange, her former step-father,1 and against
her. Self makes extraneous arguments about—and asks for relief—in other
cases, including Lange’s guardianship proceedings. Because those matters
are not before the court, it will not address them.

¶2 Because the superior court did not abuse its discretion when
it upheld the order of protection after an evidentiary hearing, the court
affirms.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶3 The court views the facts in the light most favorable to
upholding the superior court’s ruling. IB Prop. Holdings, LLC v. Rancho Del
Mar Apartments Ltd. P’ship, 228 Ariz. 61, 63 ¶ 2 (App. 2011).

¶4 Lange was Self’s step-father for a time and she refers to him
as her father. For reasons not relevant here, Lange has a court-appointed
guardian. For a time, Self was his guardian, but no longer. During the
relevant time, Lange’s biological son served as his guardian and requested
the order of protection at issue. Custom Care & Financial Solutions LLC
now serves as Mr. Lange’s guardian.

¶5 In October 2024, Lange’s son, who was Lange’s guardian at
the time, petitioned for an ex parte order of protection on behalf of Lange
against Self. The petition alleged:

After repeated warnings from my attorney and my father’s
attorney to Rene with regards to trespassing on 04OCT2024

1 Custom Care & Financial Solutions LLC is James E.’s court-appointed
guardian, is a party to this appeal with Mr. Lange, and jointly filed an
answering brief with Mr. Lange. For ease of reading, the court refers to
them collectively as Lange.

2
LANGE v. SELF
Decision of the Court

Rene arrived at my father’s home unannounced with a male
associate and forced her way in past the caregiver on duty by
pushing through the door, causing injury to the caregiver,
and refused to leave after the caregiver asked her to leave the
home.

¶6 The superior court granted the ex parte petition. Self timely
requested an evidentiary hearing, which the superior court held. The
superior court heard from 5 witnesses: Self, Lange, Lange’s son, Cecilia
Stankey (Lange’s caretaker), and Wade Wells (“male associate” referenced
in the petition). Following the hearing, the superior court issued an
amended order of protection, affirming the original order and providing
Brady provisions.

¶7 Self appealed and filed an amended opening brief after the
court first dismissed her appeal for failing to file an opening brief before
reinstating it in part. Self raises a total of 7 issues on appeal, but only 1 of
the 7 relates to the order of protection. The other issues involve separate
proceedings and are not the subject of this appeal. The following is the
extent of her discussion about the order of protection in the Amended
Opening Brief:

The Order of Protection Lacks Evidentiary Support, Violates
Due Process, and Was Based on False Allegations and
Suppressed Evidence by [Lange].

....

This case arises from . . . [a]n Order of Protection entered in
Superior Court Case No. FN2024-092831.

....

On October 9, 2024, an Order of Protection was issued against
me, based on false allegations and without opportunity to
present exculpatory evidence.

ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

....

2. Was the Order of Protection improperly issued
without sufficient evidence, with suppression of exculpatory
evidence, and contrary to James E. Lange’s expressed wishes?

3
LANGE v. SELF
Decision of the Court

....

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Order of Protection: factual findings-substantial evidence;
due process---de novo (Cardoso v. Soldo, 230 Ariz. 614, 619
(App. 2012)).

....

B. Order of Protection Lacked Evidentiary Basis

The Order relied on false complaints to APS by Jimmy and
ignored exculpatory police and documentary evidence, and
most importantly the responsive investigations of APS with
no finding of abuse by the accused - me. Denial of opportunity
to present a defense violated due process.

¶8 The court has jurisdiction over Self’s timely appeal under
Article VI, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21,
-2101.A.5(b), and Arizona Rules of Protective Order Procedure 42(b)(2).

DISCUSSION

I. The court will not consider the transcript on appeal because Self
did not file and serve it in compliance with Rule 11.1, Arizona
Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure.

¶9 Lange argues the court should presume the record supports
the superior court’s ruling because Self did not file and serve the transcript
in compliance with Rule 11. Under Rule 11, Self had to “mak[e] certain the
record on appeal contains all transcripts or other documents necessary for
us to consider the issues raised.” Baker v. Baker, 183 Ariz. 70, 73 (App. 1995)
(citing Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 11(c)(1)(A)). Self also was responsible for
serving a copy on the other parties. See Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 11.1(d)(3)
(“Within 5 days after receipt of a certified transcript from the certified
reporter or authorized transcriber, the ordering party must serve a copy of
the transcript on all other parties.”).

¶10 Self neither filed nor served the transcript as required.
Instead, she attached a copy of the transcript as an exhibit to her reply brief,
depriving Lange the opportunity to respond in his answering brief. The
transcript shows it was prepared on July 22, 2025, before Self filed her
amended opening brief and before Lange filed the answering brief. Lange

4
LANGE v. SELF
Decision of the Court

thus argues the court should presume the missing transcript supports the
superior court’s ruling. See Kohler v. Kohler, 211 Ariz. 106, 108 ¶ 8 n.1 (App.
2005) (citing Baker, 183 Ariz. at 73 and Johnson v. Elson, 192 Ariz. 485, 489
¶ 11 (App. 1998)). The court agrees.

¶11 Because Self did not comply with the Arizona Rules of Civil
Appellate Procedure, the court does not consider the transcript on appeal.
See Auman v. Auman, 134 Ariz. 40, 42 (1982) (declining to consider a
transcript when it was “not timely filed and therefore was not available for
appellee’s use prior to the time her answering brief was due.”). And
because Self did not properly file the transcript, the court presumes the
record supports the superior court’s judgment. See Kohler, 211 Ariz. at 108
¶ 8 n.1 (citation omitted).

II. Self’s opening brief does not comply with Rule 13, Arizona Rules
of Civil Appellate Procedure.

¶12 Lange argues the court further should rule Self waived her
arguments on appeal because her opening brief does not conform with Rule
13, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure. Self does not respond to the
argument beyond asking the court to reach the merits.

¶13 “An appellant who fails to make a bona fide and reasonably
intelligent effort to comply with the rules will waive issues and arguments
not supported by adequate explanation, citations to the record, or
authority.” Ramos v. Nichols, 252 Ariz. 519, 522 ¶ 8 (App. 2022) (cleaned up).
The court holds Self, a self-represented litigant, to the same standards as an
attorney and does not afford her special leniency. See Flynn v. Campbell, 243
Ariz. 76, 83–84 ¶ 24 (2017).

¶14 Under Rule 13, the opening brief must set forward “a
statement of the case that must concisely state the nature of the case, the
course of the proceedings, the disposition in the court from which the
appeal is taken, and the basis of the appellate court’s jurisdiction with
appropriate references to the record.” Ramos, 252 Ariz. at 522 ¶ 8 (citing
Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a)(4)). The brief also must cite any legal authority
and make any substantive argument. See Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a)(7)(A)
(“Appellant’s contentions concerning each issue presented for review, with
supporting reasons for each contention, and with citations of legal
authorities and appropriate references to the portions of the record on
which the appellant relies.”). And a party waives claims by failing “to
develop and support [the party’s] conclusory arguments.” Boswell v.
Fintelmann, 242 Ariz. 52, 54 ¶ 7 n.3 (App. 2017).

5
LANGE v. SELF
Decision of the Court

¶15 As paragraph 7 shows, Self’s opening brief does not set forth
any legal grounds or identifiable arguments for reversing the superior
court’s order. Self’s argument section addressed the sole issue regarding the
order of protection in a single paragraph. As a result, Lange’s answering
brief could not address the merits in any meaningful way, especially with
the presumption based on the missing transcript. And the reply brief at best
says the evidence does not support the superior court’s order so the
superior court must have abused its discretion. But that argument runs
contrary to the presumption based on the omitted transcript.

¶16 For the above reasons, the court considers Self to have
abandoned her argument about the order of protection. State v. Carver, 160
Ariz. 167, 175 (1989) (“Failure to argue a claim usually constitutes
abandonment and waiver of that claim.”) (citation omitted). Though the
court could exercise its discretion to decide this appeal on its merits based
on its own review of the record, “there is a limit to which judicial leniency
can be stretched.” Adams v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Ariz., 139 Ariz. 340, 342 (App.
1984). And failing to meet the “minimal standards of advocacy set forth in
the rules of civil appellate procedure” goes beyond the judicial leniency the
court can offer to a party. Id.

ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS

¶17 Lange requests attorney fees and costs on appeal under A.R.S.
§§ 12-341, -341.01, -342, -349, and Rule 25, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate
Procedure. Under Rule 25, an appellate court may sanction a party if it
determines that an appeal is frivolous or if a party violates the Arizona
Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure. See Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 25. The court
exercises its discretion and grants Lange’s request for attorney fees and
costs under Rule 21, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, but denies
Lange’s request to impose sanctions upon Self under Rule 25, Arizona Rules
of Civil Appellate Procedure.

CONCLUSION

¶18 The court affirms.

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

6