MALONEY v. DEMOFF

── MALONEY v. DEMOFF ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: June 02, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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 TOBY MALONEY, Plaintiff/CounterDefendant/Appellant, v. TONJA LYNN DEMOFF, et al., Defendants/CounterClaimants/Appellees. No. 1 CA-CV 25-0835 FILED 06-02-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County No. V1300CV202280256 The Honorable Linda Wallace, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED COUNSEL Nearhood Law Offices, PLC, Scottsdale, AZ By Patricia A. Premeau Counsel for Plaintiff/CounterDefendant/Appellant Meagher + Geer, P.L.L.P., Scottsdale, AZ By Wyatt M. Bailey Co-Counsel for Defendants/CounterClaimants/Appellees Duggan Bertsch, LLC, Chicago, IL By Brian Konkel (Pro Hac Vice) Co-Counsel for Defendants/CounterClaimants/Appellees  MALONEY v. DEMOFF, 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 Chief Judge Randall M. Howe joined. F A B I A N, Judge: ¶1 Toby Maloney appeals from the superior court’s dismissal of her fraud claims against Tonja Demoff and grant of summary judgment against her on her contract claims and some of Demoff’s counterclaims. For the following reasons, this Court affirms. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 In reviewing the dismissal of a claim, this Court will “assume the truth of all well-pleaded factual allegations and indulge all reasonable inferences from those facts,” and in reviewing a grant of summary judgment on a claim, this Court examines the facts “in a light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Coleman v. City of Mesa, 230 Ariz. 352, 355 ¶ 9 (2012); Read v. Phx. Newspapers, Inc., 169 Ariz. 353, 356 (1991). ¶3 Maloney and Demoff were involved in an intimate relationship from the 1990s until the late 2000s. During that period, the pair were also involved in multiple joint real estate ventures. ¶4 In October 2022, Maloney sued Demoff for fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing arising out of a dispute over a house in Sedona (“the property”). Maloney bought the property in 2005 and added Demoff to the title as a joint tenant. In early 2017, Demoff asked Maloney to take out a home equity line of credit for $245,000 secured by the property. In exchange, Demoff promised to pay back the loan and remove herself from title to the property. ¶5 Demoff signed for the loan and made monthly payments but never removed herself from title to the property. Demoff then instead proposed transferring the property into a limited liability company (“K&L”), in which Demoff and Maloney both had 50 percent interest, and selling her interests in K&L to Maloney. The parties conveyed the property to K&L in June 2017, and Maloney signed an agreement conveying Demoff’s interest in the company to Maloney, believing she now owned 2  MALONEY v. DEMOFF, et al. Decision of the Court K&L in its entirety. However, Demoff never signed that agreement and did not relinquish control of K&L. ¶6 After the lawsuit was filed in 2022, Demoff moved to dismiss the fraud and unjust enrichment claims based on the applicable statute of limitations. Demoff filed counterclaims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the covenant of good fa