Salazar v. Kremer

── Salazar v. Kremer ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: April 13, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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 YVETTE NICOLE SALAZAR, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. BRITTANY KREMER, Defendant/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV 25-0561 FILED 04-13-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CV2025-014930 The Honorable Mary Collins Cronin, Judge, Pro Tempore AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART COUNSEL The Turner Law Firm, Phoenix By Kendall Pearce Counsel for Defendant/Appellant Yvette Nicole Salazar, Phoenix Plaintiff/Appellee  SALAZAR v. KREMER Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Brian Y. Furuya delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Andrew M. Jacobs and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined. F U R U Y A, Judge: ¶1 Brittany Kremer (“Kremer”) appeals an injunction against harassment that prohibits her from contacting Yvette Salazar (“Mother”) and Mother’s three minor children, E.S., O.S., and L.S. For the following reasons, we affirm in part and vacate in part. FACTS1 AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 In April 2025, Mother filed a petition for an injunction against harassment on behalf of her children against her ex-husband’s girlfriend and neighbor, Kremer. In the petition, Mother alleged Kremer harassed her children on three separate occasions: (1) on July 5, 2024, Kremer told some neighborhood children to burn E.S. with fireworks; (2) on November 3, 2024, Kremer allowed O.S. and L.S. to be around dogs, despite the two having severe allergies; and (3) on April 25, 2025, E.S. was left home alone for several hours because Kremer refused to let E.S. enter her home, and then Kremer later assaulted E.S. ¶3 The court granted the injunction in May 2025 and Kremer timely requested a contested hearing. After granting a continuance, the court held the hearing in June 2025 and found “by a preponderance of the evidence that [Kremer] has committed acts of harassment or may commit an act of harassment in the future.” ¶4 Kremer timely appealed and we have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9 of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) Sections 12-120.21(A)(1) and -2101(A)(5)(b). DISCUSSION ¶5 Kremer argues the court abused its discretion in upholding the injunction because there was insufficient evidence in the record to establish harassment against Mother’s children. “We review orders 1 We view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the court’s decision. Martinez v. Estes, 258 Ariz. 354, 357 ¶ 7 (App. 2024). 2  SALAZAR v. KREMER Decision of the Court granting injunctions against harassment for an abuse of discretion.” Martinez v. Estes, 258 Ariz. 354, 357 ¶ 7 (App. 2024). A court abuses its discretion if the record “is devoid of competent evidence to support the decision[,]” id., or if the court makes an error of law, LaFaro v. Cahill, 203 Ariz. 482, 485 ¶ 10 (App. 2002). ¶6 The court must grant an injunction against harassment if it “finds reasonable evidence of harassment of the plaintiff by the defendant during the year preceding the filing of the petition . . . .” A.R.S. § 12-1809(E). Harassment is defined as: A series of acts over any period of time that is directed at a specific person and that would cause a reasonable person to