would have ensued. ¶ 15 On this record, and with no contrary evidence offered, the trial court properly determined that Hatch in good faith believed that he owed an obligation to the Hunts at the time of the settlement. See Restatement § 78(b)(ii). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to Hatch on indemnity. 0. Statute of Limitations Regarding Hatch’s Attorney Fees Claim Against Solomon ¶ 16 Solomon asserts that the statute of limitations bars Hatch’s indemnity claim for attorney fees spent defending against the Hunts’ suit. Solomon raises this specific argument for the first time on appeal. We conclude, therefore, that the argument has been waived. See Airfreight Exp. Ltd. v. Evergreen Ctr., Inc., 215 Ariz. 103, 109, ¶ 17, 158 P.3d 232, 238 (App. 2007) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Payne v. Payne, 12 Ariz.App. 434,
holding that the trial court properly added a party defendant to conform to the evidence presented at the trial holding a party must timely present his legal theories to the trial court so as to give the trial court an opportunity to rule properly holding that trial court was required to give full effect to supreme courts judgment and that by failing to do so the trial court abused its discretion holding that where trial court erred in applying established law to the facts of the case it must be reversed and remanded for a new hearing to give the trial court an opportunity to address the issue holding that where the issue before the court is legal as opposed to factual an appellate court need not give deference to a trial courts decision