Ghanayem v. Ghanayem

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 the Matter of the Guardianship of:

NIJMEH GHANAYEM, an Adult.

NIJMEH GHANAYEM, Petitioner/Appellee,

v.

ANGIE GHANAYEM, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CV 25-0048 PB
FILED 05-26-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. PB2022-091383
The Honorable Lisa Ann VandenBerg, Judge (Retired)

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Baumann Doyle Paytas & Bernstein PLLC, Phoenix, AZ
By Michael J. Doyle
Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee

Angie Ghanayem, Chicago, IL
Respondent/Appellant
GHANAYEM v. GHANAYEM
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Veronika Fabian delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown and Chief Judge Randall M. Howe joined.

F A B I A N, Judge:

¶1 Dr. Angie Ghanayem (“Angie”) appeals from the superior
court’s orders appointing Mervat Hani (“Mervat”) as a permanent
guardian for the parties’ mother Nijmeh Ghanayem (“Nijmeh”) 1, and from
the court’s order awarding Nijmeh’s court-appointed counsel attorney fees
under A.R.S. §§ 12-349 and 14-1105. For the following reasons, this Court
affirms.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 In 2022, Mervat petitioned the superior court to be appointed
as permanent guardian for Nijmeh. Angie objected, arguing that Mervat
was fraudulently attempting to gain guardianship of Nijmeh and that the
court lacked jurisdiction over the petition because Nijmeh’s home state was
Illinois.

¶3 The court found that Arizona was the more appropriate
forum for the petition, retained temporary jurisdiction, and stayed the
proceedings to allow the Illinois court to determine whether it would
decline jurisdiction. The Illinois court then dismissed its case.

¶4 Following an August 2024 hearing, the court appointed
Mervat as Nijmeh’s permanent guardian, but did not certify the order as
appealable under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).

¶5 On November 18, 2024, the court issued two judgments for
attorney fees and costs. The first judgment found Angie to be a vexatious
litigant and awarded attorney fees and costs to both Mervat and Nijmeh’s
Illinois guardian ad litem. The second awarded Nijmeh’s court-appointed
counsel $30,812.90 in attorney fees and costs.

1 This Court respectfully refers to the relevant parties by their first names to

avoid confusion.

2
GHANAYEM v. GHANAYEM
Decision of the Court

¶6 On December 19, 2024, Angie filed a notice of appeal seeking
to appeal the superior court’s order appointing Mervat as Nijmeh’s
guardian and the two judgments for attorney fees. This Court dismissed the
appeal as to the first attorney fees judgment as the notice of appeal was filed
more than 30 days after the judgment. See Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 9(a). Because
the second attorney fees judgment did not comply with Arizona Rule of
Civil Procedure 54(b), this Court stayed the appeal until the superior court
entered a proper Rule 54(b) judgment, which the superior court
subsequently did. Therefore, Angie’s premature notice of appeal is deemed
effective as to the order appointing Mervat as Nijmeh’s guardian and the
second judgment awarding attorney fees and costs to Nijmeh’s Arizona
court-appointed counsel. See Eaton Fruit Co. v. Cal. Spray-Chem. Corp., 102
Ariz. 129, 130 (1967); Tripati v. Forwith, 223 Ariz. 81, 84-85 ¶¶ 14-17 (App.
2009).

DISCUSSION

¶7 On appeal, Angie asks this Court to “review and reverse all
rulings in the case based on legal, judicial, clerical and procedural law
errors.” Angie makes no specific argument why the second judgment is
erroneous and cites no legal authority to support her claims. Instead, she
generally argues that “[j]udicial misconduct occurred with rulings, denials
without reasons, court proceedings, not ruling or allowing motions
objections.”

¶8 An appellant’s brief must contain, along with their
contentions, “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.” Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a)(7)(A). Here, Angie
has not done that, and this Court cannot discern any error in the court’s
decision to appoint Mervat as guardian or in awarding a judgment of
attorney fees against Angie under A.R.S. § 14-1105 or A.R.S. § 12-549. See In
re Guardianship of Kelly, 184 Ariz. 514, 518 (App. 1996) (“To obtain reversal
of a guardianship order, the appellant must show that the trial court abused
its discretion in ruling as it did.”); Phx. Newspapers, Inc. v. Dep’t of Corr., 188
Ariz. 237, 243 (App. 1997) (“When reviewing a discretionary award of
attorneys’ fees, this Court will reverse only for an abuse of discretion.”);
Takieh v. O’Meara, 252 Ariz. 51, 61-62 ¶ 39 (App. 2021) (“We review a
superior court’s application of A.R.S. § 12-349 de novo, but we view ‘the
evidence in a manner most favorable to sustaining the award’ and will
affirm unless the superior court’s findings are ‘clearly erroneous.’” (quoting
Phx. Newspapers, Inc., 188 Ariz. at 243)).

3
GHANAYEM v. GHANAYEM
Decision of the Court

CONCLUSION

¶9 This Court affirms.

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

4