In a dramatic legal battle over a real estate transaction gone awry, Narvetta Gipson’s appeal against Kevin and Laura Shinnick and Rental Renovators, Inc. has led to a partial victory for the plaintiff. The Arizona Court of Appeals ruled on December 8, 2025, affirming some decisions while vacating others in a case that highlights the complexities of property law and contractual obligations. The appeal was filed by Narvetta Gipson in the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, challenging decisions involving defendants Kevin Shinnick and others.
The case revolves around Gipson’s purchase of a residential rental duplex from the Shinnicks in Phoenix in 2019. The purchase agreement required the Shinnicks to replace the property’s sewer line before closing. They hired Rental Renovators to perform this task, but soon after taking possession, Gipson encountered severe issues with blockages and backups in the sewer line. Despite Rental Renovators’ initial warranty for their work, they refused to cover subsequent repairs under this warranty and billed Gipson instead. This refusal prompted Gipson to file a lawsuit alleging breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation against both the Shinnicks and Rental Renovators.
Gipson sought damages amounting to nearly $180,000 for lost rent due to uninhabitable conditions caused by sewer issues, costs to replace the sewer line again, and other related expenses. However, during trial proceedings on February 6, 2024, she faced setbacks as her testimony regarding collected rental amounts was precluded due to failure in timely disclosure as per procedural rules. Ultimately, while the jury found in favor of Gipson against Rental Renovators awarding her $42,500 for replacement costs; it did not award any damages for lost rent or other expenses.
The court also addressed claims for attorneys’ fees where both parties claimed victory under Arizona statutes governing fee awards based on being deemed ‘successful’. The trial court had awarded substantial fees and costs to both defendants: over $120,000 to the Shinnicks and nearly $230,000 to Rental Renovators. However, upon appeal review applying what is known as “the net judgment rule,” it was determined that since Gipson won monetary relief against Rental Renovators exceeding their counterclaims; she should be considered successful between these parties thus vacating previous fee awards granted against her.
Furthermore concerning prejudgment interest – which accrues from when an obligation becomes fixed until payment – it was ruled that such interest should apply from February 6th verdict date entitling Gipson additional compensation beyond jury-awarded sums.
Legal representation included Neal H. Bookspan & Ian M Fischer from Jaburg & Wilk P.C., representing Rental Renovators; Peter H Westby alongside Andrew Rahtz & Grant W Davis from Platt & Westby P.C., defending Kevin & Laura Shinnick while Narvetta Gipson represented herself pro se throughout proceedings overseen initially by retired Judge Timothy J Ryan at Maricopa County Superior Court followed by appellate judges Samuel A Thumma delivering opinion joined by Paul J McMurdie plus Kent E Cattani presiding over appeals docketed under No CV2021-004651 (Maricopa) / No CA-CV24-0750 (Appeals).
Source: 1CACV240750_Gipson_v_Shinnick_Opinion_Arizona_Court_of_Appeals.pdf