roadway across Lot 2-that is, the Hortons took all right, title, and interest in Lot 1 with notice of the intent to build the roadway-and, therefore, they should be denied equitable relief because, at the very least, the Hortons “came to the nuisance.” ¶ 9 Mitchell raised this argument below. The trial court determined that the Hortons were the “owners” of Lot 1 pursuant to the judgment quieting title in the Hortons’ favor. Mitchell has not cross-appealed the trial court’s determination that the Hortons were “owners” entitled to enforce the Restrictions upon the entry of judgment quieting title in their favor. Mitchell has failed to preserve this issue for appeal and we lack the jurisdiction to entertain it. Davis v. Cessna Aircraft Corp., 182 Ariz. 26, 37, 893 P.2d 26, 37 (App.1994) (<HOLDING>). Even if a cross-appeal had been filed,
holding that court lacked jurisdiction to consider issue when party did not file a crossappeal holding that this court lacks jurisdiction to review claims that have not been raised before the bia holding that an issue was not preserved for appellate review because appellants trial objection does not comport with the issue he raised on appeal recognizing that an appellants failure to properly file a notice of appeal as to a particular judgment prevents an appellate court from obtaining jurisdiction to review that judgment recognizing that this court lacks jurisdiction to review an issue that lessens an appellants rights on appeal here the hortons right to enforce the restrictions  unless a crossappeal has been taken pursuant to arizona rules of civil appellate procedure 9a