A. Except as otherwise provided in section 25-317, subsections F and G, the provisions of any decree respecting maintenance or support may be modified or terminated only on a showing of changed circumstances that are substantial and continuing except as to any amount that may have accrued as an arrearage before the date of notice of the motion or order to show cause to modify or terminate. The addition of health insurance coverage as defined in section 25-531 or a change in the availability of health insurance coverage may constitute a continuing and substantial change in circumstance. The provisions as to property disposition may not be revoked or modified, unless the court finds the existence of conditions that justify the reopening of a judgment under the laws of this state. Modifications and terminations are effective on the first day of the month following notice of the petition for modification or termination unless the court, for good cause shown, orders the change to become effective at a different date but not earlier than the date of filing the petition for modification or termination.
B. Unless otherwise agreed in writing or expressly provided in the decree, the obligation to pay future maintenance is terminated on the death of either party or the remarriage of the party receiving maintenance.
C. Unless otherwise agreed in writing or expressly provided in the decree, provisions for the support of a minor child are not terminated by the death of a parent obligated to support the child. If a parent obligated to pay support dies, the amount of future support may be modified, revoked or commuted to a lump sum payment to the extent just and appropriate in the circumstances and has priority equal to the right for family allowance in section 14-2404. Past due support has priority equal to claims provided for in section 14-3805, subsection A, paragraph 6.
D. Notwithstanding any other law, pursuant to a petition filed pursuant to this section the court may suspend the imposition of future interest that accrues on a judgment for support issued pursuant to this article for the period of time that the petitioner is incarcerated or has physical or mental disabilities to the extent that the person is unable to maintain employment.
Notes of Decisions
State Ex Rel. Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Waldren, 171 P.3d 1214 (Ariz. 2007).
· cites it 23× “A.R.S. §§ 25-327, -319(D). If the parties’ circumstances substantially change, courts generally may modify or terminate support and maintenance provisions accordingly.”
Palmer v. Palmer, 170 P.3d 676 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 23× “¶ 19 This conclusion is further supported by examination of the language and scope of subsection A of § 25-327 compared to subsection B. By addressing both “modification” and “termination” in subsection A but only “termination” in subsection B, the legislature has signaled that…”
Guerra v. Bejarano, 133 P.3d 752 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 18× “Section 24, in turn, states that any modification must be made pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 25-327 and -503 or by using a simplified procedure.”
Marriage of MacMillan v. Schwartz, 250 P.3d 1213 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 7× “Once Wife earned $50,000 or more, however, they agreed that her “earnings from employment or from her working in another active business endeavors [sic] of $50,000 per year or greater” could be considered.”
Garlan v. Garlan, 468 P.3d 1239 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 20× “Citing A.R.S. § 25-327(B), Husband argues the court had no authority to 3 GARLAN v.”
Schroeder v. Schroeder, 778 P.2d 1212 (Ariz. 1989).
· cites it 14× “ncipal issue addressed in this decision is: May a court modify the length of a spousal maintenance order that awards a monthly amount for a limited period of time, but that does not state whether the award is modifiable? We find that if a decree is silent as to the court’s power…”
Nia v. Nia, 396 P.3d 1099 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 4× “” A.R.S. § 25-327(A); Guidelines § 24(A) (“[E]ither parent .”
Snow v. Snow, 745 P.2d 196 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 34× “It reasoned that: [e]xcept to the extent that lump sum or gross amount awards for spousal maintenance are now subject to modification (including termination) in the event of death or remarriage, [footnote omitted] it does not appear that the statutory language contained in the…”
Diefenbach v. Holmberg, 26 P.3d 1186 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 10× “There, this court determined that the spousal maintenance obligation terminated after the paying spouse’s death despite nonmodification language incorporated into the dissolution decree based on an older version of § 25-327. ¶ 8 That the clause in the M.S.”
Van Dyke v. Steinle, 902 P.2d 1372 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 15× “On appeal, wife argues that the trial court order terminating spousal maintenance was improper because her cohabitation with Galvin is not a sufficient ground on which to terminate spousal maintenance under A.R.S. § 25-327 and Smith v. Mangum, 155 Ariz.”
In Re the Marriage of Thorlin, 746 P.2d 929 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 16× “2d 185 (1983) discussed A.R.S. § 25-327 A and Rule 60(c) and provides authority for the trial court to set aside a divorce decree.”
Lindsay v. Lindsay, 565 P.2d 199 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 7× “Having concluded that the maintenance award here involved constitutes a lump sum award not subject to being modified in the exercise of the court’s continuing jurisdiction, we now consider the merits of appellant’s contention that the trial judge abused his discretion in…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-327(A) — 148 cases
State Ex Rel. Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Waldren, 171 P.3d 1214 (Ariz. 2007).
“A.R.S. §§ 25-327, -319(D). If the parties’ circumstances substantially change, courts generally may modify or terminate support and maintenance provisions accordingly.”
Guerra v. Bejarano, 133 P.3d 752 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
“Section 24, in turn, states that any modification must be made pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 25-327 and -503 or by using a simplified procedure.”
Nia v. Nia, 396 P.3d 1099 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
“” A.R.S. § 25-327(A); Guidelines § 24(A) (“[E]ither parent .”
Marriage of MacMillan v. Schwartz, 250 P.3d 1213 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
“Once Wife earned $50,000 or more, however, they agreed that her “earnings from employment or from her working in another active business endeavors [sic] of $50,000 per year or greater” could be considered.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-327(B) — 23 cases
Palmer v. Palmer, 170 P.3d 676 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“¶ 19 This conclusion is further supported by examination of the language and scope of subsection A of § 25-327 compared to subsection B. By addressing both “modification” and “termination” in subsection A but only “termination” in subsection B, the legislature has signaled that…”
Garlan v. Garlan, 468 P.3d 1239 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
“Citing A.R.S. § 25-327(B), Husband argues the court had no authority to 3 GARLAN v.”
Diefenbach v. Holmberg, 26 P.3d 1186 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
“There, this court determined that the spousal maintenance obligation terminated after the paying spouse’s death despite nonmodification language incorporated into the dissolution decree based on an older version of § 25-327. ¶ 8 That the clause in the M.S.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-327(C) — 2 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-327(D) — 2 cases
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.