Recent AZ Family Law Cases

Warning: Case decisions are often subject to further review by other courts and thus may be affirmed, overturned, or modified in later proceedings; therefore the reader should exercise caution in the reading and interpretation of these cases as the current status of case law and/or statutory law may have changed by the time you read this. Please consult with a licensed attorney in the proper jurisdiction before you take any action based on what you read on this or any other website.

Family Law


Attorney's Fees

Guiterrez vs. Guiterrez (09/15/1998)
Mr. Guiterrez, the husband in this divorce case, appeals three of the trial court's decisions: (1) That he wasted community assets, (2) that Mrs. Guiterrez was entitled to lifetime spousal maintenance, and (3) the order that he pay his wife's attorney fees. The Arizona Court of Appeals, often citing to testimony in the trial court, concluded that Mr. Guiterrez had wasted community assets. Likewise, the Court of Appeals decided against Mr. Guiterrez on the spousal maintenance issue, concluding that Mrs. Guiterrez was working at her highest earning potential, that the marriage was of sufficient duration to merit a permanent award and that, should circumstances change, Mr. Guiterrez was entitled to seek a modification of the original spousal maintenance award. Finally, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision on attorney's fees, finding that Mrs. Guiterrez was the party least able to pay, a consideration allowed under Arizona Revised Statute §25-324, and that the trial court properly considered a settlement offer as it related to the reasonableness of Mr. Guiterrez' position, another factor allowed under the same Arizona statute. Please note as you read the case that Mr. Guiterrez made several mistakes/omissions at trial and apparently immediately after that made his case somewhat weaker on appeal.

Business Valuation

Kelsey vs. Kelsey (01/09/1996)
The two big issues at stake in this appeal before the Arizona Supreme Court involved business valuation and spousal maintenance. The Supreme Court disagreed with the trial court's acceptance of the wife's expert's evaluation and business characterization. In addition, the Arizona Supreme Court found the trial court's reasoning on spousal maintenance flawed.

Child Custody, Visitation and Relocation Cases

Owen vs. Blackhawk (11/18/2003)
Elizabeth Clark Owen (mother) appeals from the trial court's orders preventing her from relocating the parties' minor child to Wyoming, designating Charles Edward Blackhawk (father) as the primary residential parent, and denying mother's motion for relief from order and motion for new trial


Child Support Cases

Clay vs. Clay Arizona, (6/24/04)
The mother and father had ongoing disputes over child support. The father, who is disabled, claimed that a lump-sum payment from Social Security Disability Insurance should not only be applied toward his existing child support arrearage but that this payment toward child support created an excess for which the mother must repay him. The Court of Appeals disagreed with most of father's arguments on the child support issue.


Casimir K. Jarski, Debtor (11/06/2003)
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona determined the following in this post-divorce decree case when Mr. Jarski filed for bankruptcy:

1. The former wife, Ms. Bernreuter, was entitled to make a showing that the former husband, Mr. Jarski, was unable to satisfy the Bankruptcy Code's § 522(f)'s requirement that the property "would have been exempt" at the time the petition was filed, even though she failed to object on time to Mr. Jarski's exemption claim.

2. Mr. Jarski could legitimately claim residency in Arizona and thus apply for Arizona's homestead exemption despite having claimed California residency approximately two months before filing his bankruptcy petition when he registered the divorce decree in California.

3. Mr. Jarski was unable to avoid or discharge the lien for attorney's fees he owed to Ms. Bernreuter, despite the fact that the fees were awarded for a post-decree custody issue. The award of attorney's fees was in the nature of child support since the best interest of the child standard applies in both pre- and post-decree custody issues.

4. Ms. Bernreuter's second lien, for additional attorney's fees and costs awarded to her following Mr. Jarski's unsuccessful appeal of the Arizona family court's (the trial court) order pursuant to the divorce, was also found valid and non-dischargeable because the fees and costs were also in the nature of child support, as the issues appealed were custody and visitation, both determined according to the best interest of the child standard.


McHale vs. McHale Arizona (3/9/05)
In July 2003, Mother filed a petition regarding contempt and seeking modification of child support in Maricopa County Superior Court. The petition alleged that Father had not paid child support since December 2002, and Mother requested that the court order Father pay $ 4490 in arrears plus interest.


Cases Involving Non-Parents

Douglas Paul Dodge v. Kathryn Lucille Graville, et vir.
"For analysis of this case and related ones, please review Carrie Wilcox' article "Custody and Access Rights of Grandparent and Non-Biologically Related Persons in Arizona: An Analysis of Current Law"


Dodge v. Graville 195 Ariz. 119
The court awarded the grandparents visitation with the children of their deceased daughter. On appeal, the children's father challenges the constitutionality of the grandparent visitation statute, Arizona Revised Statutes Annotated (ARS) section 25-409. "For analysis of this case and related ones, please review Carrie Wilcox' article "Custody and Access Rights of Grandparent and Non-Biologically Related Persons in Arizona: An Analysis of Current Law"

KATHRYN LUCILLE and DONALD GRAVILLE, Petitioners-Appellees, v. DOUGLAS PAUL DODGE, Respondent-Appellant.
"For analysis of this case and related ones, please review Carrie Wilcox' article "Custody and Access Rights of Grandparent and Non-Biologically Related Persons in Arizona: An Analysis of Current Law"


KATHRYN LUCILLE GRAVILLE and DONALD GRAVILLE, Petitioners-Appellees, v. DOUGLAS PAUL DODGE, Respondent-Appellant.
"For analysis of this case and related ones, please review Carrie Wilcox' article "Custody and Access Rights of Grandparent and Non-Biologically Related Persons in Arizona: An Analysis of Current Law"


CHRISTY AND STEVEN JACKSON, wife and husband, Petitioners-Appellants, v. SANDI TANGREEN, Respondent-Appellee.
"For analysis of this case and related ones, please review Carrie Wilcox' article "Custody and Access Rights of Grandparent and Non-Biologically Related Persons in Arizona: An Analysis of Current Law"

MONTIE McGOVERN and ANN McGOVERN, Petitioners/Appellants, v. TAMMY McGOVERN, Respondent/Appellee.
"For analysis of this case and related ones, please review Carrie Wilcox' article "Custody and Access Rights of Grandparent and Non-Biologically Related Persons in Arizona: An Analysis of Current Law"

JANETTE RAE SMITH RIEPE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. BRANDY JO RIEPE, Respondent-Appellee.
"For analysis of this case and related ones, please review Carrie Wilcox' article "Custody and Access Rights of Grandparent and Non-Biologically Related Persons in Arizona: An Analysis of Current Law"


Jenifer Troxel V. Tommie Granville
"For analysis of this case and related ones, please review Carrie Wilcox' article "Custody and Access Rights of Grandparent and Non-Biologically Related Persons in Arizona: An Analysis of Current Law"

Downs vs. Scheffler (12/04/2003)
Kortnee was born in August 1991 to parents who never married. Both parents and Kortnee lived with Scheffler for a short time, but in December 1991 Downs and Kortnee left Scheffler's home. That same month, Kortnee's father petitioned the court for sole custody of Kortnee. Instead, Downs was awarded sole custody with Kortnee's father receiving supervised parenting time and Scheffler receiving grandparent visitation

Community Property

Kelly vs. Kelly (09/14/2000)
Mr. and Mrs. Kelly were both government employees. Mr. Kelly's position allowed him to participate in the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS), meaning that Mr. Kelly's work was excluded from the U.S. Social Security System and if he ever received Social Security, it would lower his CSRS payments, while Mrs. Kelly participated in the Federal Employees Retirement System, part of which includes the standard Social Security system. When the Kellys divorced, the lower courts, including the Arizona Family Court
and the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two, relied on federal law that stated that Social Security was not divisible as community property in state divorce proceedings. Mr. Kelly believed this was unfair, since his CSRS amounts were divisible under Arizona community property law and the Arizona Family Court, in fact, divided them. The Supreme Court of Arizona agreed with Mr. Kelly that this provided an inequitable divorce result since the parties' community wages had each contributed to the retirement benefits, yet only Mr. Kelly's benefits were divided. The Arizona Supreme Court remanded the case back to the Arizona Family Court to make a more equitable ruling in the divorce.

Spear vs. Spear



(07/21/1992


)
Mr. Spear was convicted in the Arizona Criminal Court of murdering his wife and children. As could be expected, the personal representative for Mrs. Spear, her brother, attempted to deny Mr. Spear from receiving anything from her estate, as well as any portion of the community property accrued during the marriage. On appeal, the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, addressed the community property issue. The Arizona Court of Appeals concluded that since Mr. Spear's share of the community property was not
part of Mrs. Spear's estate, there was no authority to prevent him from receiving his share of the community property.


Lamparella vs. Lamparella (03/29/2005)
The probate court appointed Angelo's mother, Norma, as Personal Representative for Angelo's estate. In July 2002, the estate submitted a claim to Jackson National Life for the proceeds of the annuity policy. While the estate's claim was pending, Pamela also submitted a claim to Jackson National Life for the annuity proceeds.

Brebaugh vs. Deane (08/23/2005)
The court determined that stock options are not always uniform -they are given at different times, under different circumstances and for different reasons. The appellate court determined that even stock options that vest after the divorce is final could be community property, depending on whether the stock options that were the subject in this divorce action were provided for past services and/or incentives for the future. The appellate court thus referred the case back to the trial court for a determination on that issue since the trial court previously held that all of the husband's stock options were in the nature of community property.

Birt vs. Brit (08/24/2004)
The appellate court found that the Arizona family court improperly denied
the wife's motion to set aside the divorce decree. The appellate court
found that when one party to a divorce files bankruptcy soon after the
divorce is finalized and thus changes the equities of the divorce decree's
allocations, setting aside the decree of dissolution is appropriate.

Fuentes vs. Fuentes (08/26/2004)
The husband in this appeal of an Arizona divorce case claimed five errors on the family (trial) court's part. The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, found as follows:


1. The trial court did not error when it awarded more than 50% of the
husband's income to wife in the form of child support and spousal
maintenance (alimony).


2. The trial court did not improperly fail to consider the husband's
financial needs when it ruled on the spousal maintenance (alimony) issue.


3. The trial court inappropriately considered the husband's misbehavior in
calculating child support. Specifically, the trial court should not have
ignored the husband's two out-of-wedlock children for child support
calculations under the Arizona Child Support Guidelines.


4. The admission into evidence of the wife's budget was harmless error.
Although the Arizona Court of Appeals agreed with the husband that the
budget was hearsay and also decided it was cumulative, adequate foundation
for the budget was present. The appellate court also noted that this type
of evidence is often allowed in the Arizona family court system.


5. Finally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying husband
a closing argument. The Arizona Court of Appeals ruled that there is no
absolute right to a closing argument, especially in a civil bench trial.


Spousal Maintenance

Guiterrez vs. Guiterrez (09/15/1998)
Mr. Guiterrez, the husband in this divorce case, appeals three of the trial court's decisions: (1) That he wasted community assets, (2) that Mrs. Guiterrez was entitled to lifetime spousal maintenance, and (3) the order that he pay his wife's attorney fees. The Arizona Court of Appeals, often citing to testimony in the trial court, concluded that Mr. Guiterrez had wasted community assets. Likewise, the Court of Appeals decided against Mr. Guiterrez on the spousal maintenance issue, concluding that Mrs. Guiterrez was working at her highest earning potential, that the marriage was of sufficient duration to merit a permanent award and that, should circumstances change, Mr. Guiterrez was entitled to seek a modification of the original spousal maintenance award. Finally, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision on attorney's fees, finding that Mrs. Guiterrez was the party least able to pay, a consideration allowed under Arizona Revised Statute §25-324, and that the trial court properly considered a settlement offer as it related to the reasonableness of Mr. Guiterrez' position, another factor allowed under the same Arizona statute. Please note as you read the case that Mr. Guiterrez made several mistakes/omissions at trial and apparently immediately after that made his case somewhat weaker on appeal.

Hughes vs. Hughes (07/20/1993)
The Arizona Court of Appeals shows its disappointment with the trial court's decision to award permanent spousal maintenance after a seven-year marriage. In this case, the Court of Appeals found no reasoning present in the trial court's decision that would have contradicted the normal presumption and public policy that a spouse receiving spousal maintenance should make some effort toward becoming independent. The case was remanded for proceedings consistent with the Arizona Court of Appeals' decision.

Kelsey vs. Kelsey (01/09/1996)
The two big issues at stake in this appeal before the Arizona Supreme Court involved business valuation and spousal maintenance. The Supreme Court disagreed with the trial court's acceptance of the wife's expert's evaluation and business characterization. In addition, the Arizona Supreme Court found the trial court's reasoning on spousal maintenance flawed.

Rainwater vs. Rainwater (07/01/1993)
Mr. Rainwater, the husband in this Arizona family law case, appealed the trial court's decision that awarded his wife indefinite spousal maintenance (formerly commonly referred to as alimony). The court rejected Mr. Rainwater's argument that spousal maintenance was really meant to be rehabilitative or transitional in nature, not a permanent lifetime annuity (my words, not Mr. Rainwater's or the court's). The court, however, felt that Mr. Rainwater's argument gives inadequate weight to the standard of living established during the marriage and to Mrs. Rainwater's contribution to Mr. Rainwater's earning ability, both factors included in Arizona's spousal maintenance statute.

Schroeder vs. Schroeder (07/18/1989



)
The Arizona Supreme Court evaluated the modifiability of a spousal maintenance (alimony) order when the Arizona family Court Order is for a set duration but is silent as to modifiability. The Arizona Supreme Court determined that when an Arizona spousal maintenance order is silent as to modifiability, the spousal maintenance order may be modified under Arizona law upon a showing of significant and substantial change of circumstances.

Van Dyke vs. Steinle (03/28/1995)
The Arizona Family Court stopped husband's spousal maintenance (alimony) obligation based on husband's argument that wife's cohabitation was basically just like marriage and that, since the spousal maintenance order required that the spousal maintenance would cease upon her remarriage, wife was not entitled to further spousal maintenance. The Arizona Family Court agreed and stopped the spousal maintenance. Wife appealed and the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, agreed with wife that the cohabitation, in and of itself, did not meet the requirements for stopping the spousal maintenance. The Court of Appeals did, however, remand the case back to the trial court, for a determination as to whether husband's evidence would allow a partial downward modification of husband's spousal maintenance obligation.


Diefenback vs. Holmberg (06//282001)
The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two, discusses the spousal maintenance (alimony) decision the Arizona Family Court handed down and overturns the family court. The appellate case centers around two parties that, upon divorce, settled on a spousal maintenance agreement that provided the wife with seven years of spousal maintenance. The original marital settlement contained a clause that the spousal maintenance would automatically terminate upon either party's death. Five years later, the wife wanted to modify the spousal maintenance award and the parties agreed to six years of spousal maintenance from that point on, such amount to be non-modifiable as to amount and duration. When wife died three years later, the trustee of her estate argued that the new agreement did not include the termination upon death provision and, therefore, husband must pay to the estate the remaining years of his spousal maintenance obligation. The Arizona trial court agreed, but the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the language of the relevant Arizona statute, A.R.S. §25-327(B), applied and that husband was not further obligated.


Zale vs. Zale (01/12/1999)
Mrs. Zale appealed from a finding that her spousal maintenance award was for a fixed term. The Arizona Supreme Court, finding that the "parol evidence rule" does not apply to judgments, agreed with Mrs. Zale and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its ruling.

Waste of Community Assets

Guiterrez vs. Guiterrez (09/15/1998)
Mr. Guiterrez, the husband in this divorce case, appeals three of the trial court's decisions: (1) That he wasted community assets, (2) that Mrs. Guiterrez was entitled to lifetime spousal maintenance, and (3) the order that he pay his wife's attorney fees. The Arizona Court of Appeals, often citing to testimony in the trial court, concluded that Mr. Guiterrez had wasted community assets. Likewise, the Court of Appeals decided against Mr. Guiterrez on the spousal maintenance issue, concluding that Mrs. Guiterrez was working at her highest earning potential, that the marriage was of sufficient duration to merit a permanent award and that, should circumstances change, Mr. Guiterrez was entitled to seek a modification of the original spousal maintenance award. Finally, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision on attorney's fees, finding that Mrs. Guiterrez was the party least able to pay, a consideration allowed under Arizona Revised Statute §25-324, and that the trial court properly considered a settlement offer as it related to the reasonableness of Mr. Guiterrez' position, another factor allowed under the same Arizona statute. Please note as you read the case that Mr. Guiterrez made several mistakes/omissions at trial and apparently immediately after that made his case somewhat weaker on appeal.

Juvenile Law

Kent K. vs. Bobby M.
In this juvenile law-related court decision, the Arizona Supreme Court addressed the standards of proof relevant to termination of parental rights. The Court confirmed that the first part of the termination test, whether statutory grounds for termination are met, must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.However, in overturning the Arizona Court of Appeals' determination on the second part of the termination test, best interests of the child, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that due process does not require imposing the clear and convincing evidence standard for an inquiry into the best interests of the child. Thus, under this court ruling, the higher "clear and convincing" standard applies to the initial statutory inquiry and the lower "preponderance of the evidence" standard applies to the best interest inquiry.

Steven K., Vs. Arizona Department Of Economic Security (06/23/2005)
The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, overturned the trial court's decision to terminate the father's parental rights, finding that father's time in prison had included participation in the available prison programs to overcome substance abuse problems. Thus, the father had done what he could to remedy his problems and, essentially, should be given time to prove himself. Note that previously the mother in this case voluntarily allowed the State to terminate her parental rights.