TRIFECTA v. CT INVESTMENTS

── TRIFECTA v. CT INVESTMENTS ── Case No.: 1 CA-CV 25-0076 Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: March 09, 2026 Category: General 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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 TRIFECTA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. CT INVESTMENTS NORTH, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; JAMES B. PATTERSON and JANE DOE PATTERSON, husband and wife; NORTHERN ARIZONA TITLE AGENCY, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, Defendants/Appellants. No. 1 CA-CV 25-0076 No. 1 CA-CV 25-0210 (Consolidated) FILED 03-09-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Coconino County No. S0300CV202100445 No. S0300CV202100544 The Honorable Elaine Fridlund-Horne, Judge REVERSED AND REMANDED COUNSEL Fennemore Craig, P.C., Phoenix By Timothy J. Berg and Emily Ward Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee Papetti Samuels Weiss McKirgan LLP, Scottsdale By Lawrence Kasten and Jared Sutton Counsel for Defendants/Appellants  TRIFECTA v. CT INVESTMENTS et al. Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Veronika Fabian delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge Cynthia J. Bailey joined. F A B I A N, Judge: ¶1 CT Investments North, LLC (“CTI”), James B. Patterson, and Northern Arizona Title Agency, LLC (“NATA”) (collectively “Appellants”), appeal from the superior court’s order denying CTI and Patterson’s motion to compel satisfaction of judgment. Because Trifecta, LLC, accepted payments from NATA that satisfied the judgment in full, the superior court erred in denying the motion. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 In 2019, CTI and Trifecta entered into an agreement to form NATA, a title insurance and escrow agency. Patterson was CTI’s manager. In 2021, Trifecta sued CTI and Patterson for various claims arising from their attempt to disassociate Trifecta from NATA and sought to place NATA in a receivership. NATA filed counterclaims against Trifecta. ¶3 After trial in August of 2024, the jury found in favor of Appellants on some claims and in favor of Trifecta on others. The jury concluded “there has not been a ‘Dissociation (sic) Event’ under the NATA Operating Agreement.” In the verdict forms, the jury found Trifecta’s “full damages” were $1,244,052.06 plus legal fees and expenses. ¶4 On November 14, 2024, the superior court issued a judgment incorporating the jury’s verdict, stating: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, based on the judgment in Trifecta’s favor on Count II and Count III, awarding Trifecta damages in the amount of $1,244,052.06. . . . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED awarding to Trifecta taxable costs in the amount of $6,045.62 plus attorney’s fees in the amount of $210,539.00, against CTI only. The judgment also stated: 2  TRIFECTA v. CT INVESTMENTS et al. Decision of the Court IT IS FURTHER ORDERED . . . finding that there has not been a disassociation event, that Trifecta is not disassociated from NATA, and that Trifecta remains a 60 percent (60%) owner of NATA as of the date of entry of this Judgment. ¶5 Appellants filed a notice of appeal from the judgment. Thereafter, NATA sent payment of the judgment to Trifecta in the form of two checks. Accompanying the checks was a letter from NATA’s attorney, stating that the checks had been issued pursuant to a demand for indemnific