§ 3.7.2.6.5.15 Domestic Relations Rulings.
Jurisdiction | Arizona |
§ 3.7.2.6.5.15 Domestic Relations Rulings.
Generally. In In re Bollermann v. Nowlis, 234 Ariz. 340, 322 P.3d 157 (2014), the supreme court held that a family court decree that does not provide for attorneys’ fees and does not contain a certification of finality pursuant to R. Fam. L. Proc. 78(B) is not final for appellate purposes. However, decisions such as decrees of dissolution and child support orders take effect upon entry, so that parties generally may remarry during appeals, and spousal maintenance and child support orders remain effective pending appeals. Any delay caused by failure to submit attorneys’ fees applications can be resolved either by the trial court setting a deadline for such applications or entering Rule 78(B) certifications on the merits. This case resolved a number of prior inconsistent cases on this issue. Natale v. Natale, 234 Ariz. 507, 509, ¶¶ 8-9, 323 P.3d 1158, 1160 (App. 2014), also holds that a family court ruling resolving some, but not all, of the issues pending before the court but that does not have a R. Fam. L. Proc. 78(B) certification is not final and appealable.
The standards of review applicable to domestic relations rulings depend upon the nature of the ruling and the specific type of issue involved. Examples include:
Abuse of Discretion. A court abuses its discretion if it commits an error of law in reaching a discretionary conclusion, it reaches a conclusion without considering the evidence, it commits some other substantial error of law, or the record fails to provide substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding. See Walsh v. Walsh, 230 Ariz. 486, 490, ¶ 9, 286 P.3d 1095, 1099 (App. 2012).
Apportionment of Community Property. The trial court’s apportionment of community property is generally reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Barnett v. Jedynak, 219 Ariz. 550, 553, ¶ 10, 200 P.3d 1047, 1050 (App. 2009); Hetherington v. Hetherington, 220 Ariz. 16, ¶ 18, 202 P.3d 481, 486 (App. 2008); Danielson v. Evans, 201 Ariz. 401, 406, ¶ 13, 36 P.3d 749, 754 (App. 2001). However, the trial court may abuse its discretion if it commits an error of law in exercising its discretion. See Barnett, 219 Ariz. at 553, ¶ 10, 200 P.3d at 1050; Boncoskey v. Boncoskey, 216 Ariz. 448, 451, ¶ 13, 167 P.3d 705, 708 (App. 2007).
The trial court’s classification of property as separate or community is a question of law subject to de novo review. See Bell-Kilbourn v. Bell-Kilbourn, 216 Ariz. 521, 523, ¶ 4, 169 P.3d 111, 113 (App. 2007); In re Marriage of Pownall, 197 Ariz. 577, 581, ¶ 15, 5 P.3d 911, 915 (App. 2000). A case involving largely undisputed facts and essentially hinging on interpretation of statutes and an out-of-state decree and order also involves issues subject to de novo review. See Danielson v. Evans, 201 Ariz. 401, 406, ¶ 13, 36 P.3d 749, 754 (App. 2001).
Attorneys’ Fees Awards. Attorneys’ fees awards pursuant to A.R.S. § 25-324(A) generally are within the trial court’s sound discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent abuse of discretion. See Myrick v. Maloney, 235 Ariz. 491, 494, ¶ 6, 333 P.3d 818, 821 (App. 2014); Rinegar v. Rinegar, 231 Ariz. 85, 90, ¶ 22, 290 P.3d 1208, 1213 (App. 2012); Mangan v. Mangan, 227 Ariz. 346, 352, ¶ 26, 258 P.3d 164, 170 (App. 2011). A trial court’s ruling that a husband’s agreement to pay legal fees is solely his obligation is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Vance-Koepnick v. Koepnick, 197 Ariz. 162, 164, ¶ 9, 3 P.3d 1082, 1084 (App. 1999). A trial court’s denial of a party’s request for attorneys’ fees also is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See In re Marriage of Williams, 219 Ariz. 546, 548, ¶ 8, 200 P.3d 1043, 1045 (App. 2008).
However, entitlement to fees in a family law proceeding is reviewed de novo as an issue of law. See Thompson v. Corry, 231 Ariz. 161, 163, ¶ 4, 291 P.3d 358, 360 (App. 2012). Issues involving interpretation of A.R.S. § 25-324 are reviewed de novo. See Magee v. Magee, 206 Ariz. 589, 590, ¶ 6, 81 P.3d 1048, 1049 (App. 2004) (whether applicant spouse must show actual inability to pay own fees). The propriety of a litigant’s legal position for purposes of A.R.S. § 25-324 is evaluated by an objective standard of reasonableness, not the litigant’s subjective intent. See Marriage of Williams, 219 Ariz. at 548, ¶ 10, 200 P.3d at 1045.
Before awarding attorneys’ fees on appeal, the court of appeals is required by A.R.S. § 25-324 to examine both the financial resources and the reasonableness of the positions of each party. See Duwyenie v. Moran, 220 Ariz. 501, ¶ 19, 207 P.3d 754, 759 (App. 2009). Applying this standard, the court of appeals has held neither party was entitled to an award of appellate attorneys’ fees in a divorce action, since neither party had taken unreasonable positions, and their financial disparity did not warrant an award of fees to either of them. See Hetherington v. Hetherington, 220 Ariz. 16, ¶ 33, 202 P.3d 481, 489 (App. 2008).
The trial court’s calculation of the amount of fees to be awarded is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Thompson v. Corry, 231 Ariz. 161, 163, ¶ 4, 291 P.3d 358, 360 (App. 2012). An award of attorneys’ fees in a child custody proceeding is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See In re Marriage of Gibbs, 227 Ariz. 403, 410, ¶ 20, 258 P.3d 221, 228 (App. 2011); Mangan v. Mangan, 227 Ariz. 346, 352, ¶ 16, 258 P.3d 164, 170 (App. 2011).
Child Custody and Visitation. In general, a notice of appeal, even from a signed decision on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial