Husband motion in Arizona

2026Koelsch, 148 Ariz. at 181 .

2023More than 18 months later, and over Husband’s objection, the court entered an amended Domestic Relations Order (the “Amended DRO”) requiring Husband to make monthly payments to Wife until he retires pursuant to Koelsch v. Koelsch, 148 Ariz. 176 (1986).

2024See Schwab v. Ames Constr., 207 Ariz. 56 , 59, ¶ 15 (App. 2004) (“A failure to respond to a motion for summary judgment with a written memorandum or opposing affidavits cannot, by itself, entitle the moving party to summary judgment.”).

2014Husband asserts that Wife’s failure to file a response created “an adverse inference against Wife permissible in that she does not dispute the assertions raised by Husband in his motion.” “Generally, a party must file a written response whenever a motion is filed.” Schwab v. Ames Constr., 207 Ariz. 56 , 59, ¶ 14, 83 P.3d 56 , 59 (App. 2004) (citations omitted).

2022In re Marriage of Pownall, 197 Ariz. at 583 , ¶ 25 n.5. 3 Notwithstanding Husband’s challenge, we note that the successful completion of an anger management class is an enumerated statutory basis for rebutting the A.R.S. § 25-403.03(D) presumption.

2014See id. (allocation of debt in dissolution proceeding reviewed for clear abuse of discretion); In re Marriage of Pownall, 197 Ariz. 577, 583, ¶ 31 , 5 P.3d 911, 917 (App. 2000) (spousal maintenance award reviewed for abuse of discretion). ¶19 Finally, Wife argues the court erred by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on Husband's motion to compel reimbursement.

2020However, “[m]erely mentioning an argument in an appellate opening brief is insufficient.” McMillian v. Schwartz, 226 Ariz. 584 , 591 ¶ 33 (App. 2011).

2017MacMillan v. Schwartz, 226 Ariz. 584, 592, ¶ 36 (App. 2011) (citing In re Marriage of Berger, 140 Ariz. 156, 167 (App. 1983)). ¶17 Here, the family court found: (1) a substantial financial disparity between the parties; (2) Husband took an unreasonable legal position; and (3) Husband’s motion for relief from the separation decree was not grounded in fact or based on law.

2025Under Bobrow, “to defeat Husband’s claim for reimbursement, Wife was obligated to prove by clear and convincing evidence Husband intended the payments for community expenses to be a gift.” Id. at 596, ¶ 15 .

2025But both orders—the first, issued under advisement following the evidentiary hearing, and the second, issued denying Husband’s motion to amend—correctly set forth the stipulation: (1) Wife proposes—and Husband appears to agree—that rather than price each individual repair for reimbursement, the more appropriate course of action is to assess the compensation for repairs in terms of the increased value to the home. (2) [The parties] stipulated to the following: “The repairs and improvements shall be valued based on the value added to the sale price of the home, and not the actual price of repair

2025See Stock, 250 Ariz. at 354 ¶ 5; Kreamer, 243 Ariz. at 275 ¶ 10. 5 MIKALACKI v. RUBEZIC Decision of the Court ¶17 As with his challenges to the valuation of the law firm discussed above, his June 2024 petition seeking to vacate the March 2021 decree’s award of fees to Wife was untimely, and Husband made no attempt to show how his more than three-year delay was reasonable.

2025See Societe Jean Nicolas Et Fils v. Mousseux, 123 Ariz. 59, 61 (1979) (“[A] forum selection clause that is fairly bargained for and not the result of fraud will be enforced so long as to do so is reasonable at the time of litigation and does not deprive a litigant of his day in court.”). ¶9 Wife contends she did not contest the validity of the agreement because it was raised as part of Husband’s motion to dismiss, which the court held in abeyance.

2025Appellate Jurisdiction. ¶7 Our jurisdiction is limited to that specifically provided by statute, Brionna J. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 247 Ariz. 346 , 349, ¶ 7 (App. 2019), and “[w]e have an independent duty to determine whether we have jurisdiction over an appeal,” Desert Palm Surgical Grp. v. Petta, 236 Ariz. 568, 576, ¶ 15 (App. 2015). ¶8 Husband argues the superior court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration is an appealable final judgment, but the court entered the final judgment when it denied Husband’s motion to set aside the default decree in January 2023.

2023Buckholtz v. Buckholtz, 246 Ariz. 126, 131, ¶ 17 (App. 2019) (addressing issues or arguments that “may occur on remand”). 7 SCHULTZ v. SCHULTZ Decision of the Court ¶26 Case law holds that an award of spousal maintenance for an indefinite term is inappropriate where the recipient spouse is presently unable to maintain employment due to a disability that is temporary in nature.

2023See Gonzales v. Gonzales, 134 Ariz. 437, 437 (App. 1982) (“Although we may regard this failure to respond as a confession of reversible error, we are not required to do so.”).

2023Accordingly, Husband's motion to set aside the 2009 separation decree was only viable to the extent he sought relief under Rule 85(b)(6) for fraud on the court. ¶18 Fraud on the court, often referred to as extrinsic or collateral fraud, means "some intentional act or conduct by which the prevailing party has prevented the unsuccessful party from having a fair submission of the controversy." Bates v. Bates, 1 Ariz. App. 165, 169 (1965).

2023Setting aside a judgment for fraud on the court requires "fraud or deception practiced on the unsuccessful party" such that "there never has been a real contest before the court of the subject matter of the suit." Id. ¶19 The issues Husband raises on appeal do not concern fraudulent or deceptive acts by "the prevailing party." See id.

2023See Cohen v. Frey, 215 Ariz. 62, 66, ¶ 10 (App. 2007). ¶9 On Husband’s motion, the court continued the trial to July 27, 2021.

2021Grosvenor Holdings, L.C. v. Figueroa, 222 Ariz. 588, 593, ¶ 9 (App. 2009).

2021See Burton, 205 Ariz. at 30, ¶ 16 . 3 ALDANA v. ALDANA Decision of the Court CONCLUSION ¶9 We affirm the decree.

2020To the extent the court relied on § 12-1551 in dismissing these claims, it erred because Husband’s obligations to maintain the business and keep a life insurance policy in place are equitable directives, not money judgments “upon which execution or like process may be sought.” Jensen, 241 Ariz. at 229, ¶ 13 .

2020See Lehn, 246 Ariz. at 284, ¶ 20 .

2020Miller v. Hehlen, 209 Ariz. 462, 465, ¶ 5 (App. 2005). ¶9 Husband claims that although the superior court correctly held that the value of AFC was $2.28 million, it erred in interpreting the purchase agreement to mean that TCLG had to book the entire $2.28 million as an asset without accounting for the Schedule 1.5 fees, which he asserts remained a liability. ¶10 But the agreement incorporated amounts previously owed.

2020Porter v. Porter, 67 Ariz. 273, 281 (1948). 3 BEJARANO v. ORTIZ-GARCIA Decision of the Court ¶9 Lastly, we do not have jurisdiction to adjudicate Husband’s claim about Wife disobeying the superior court’s decree.

2020See In Re Marriage of Thorn, 235 Ariz. 216, 220, ¶¶ 17-18 (App. 2014) (distinguishing Weaver and concluding that subject matter jurisdiction is not “coterminous” with the family court’s authority to act pursuant to the marital statutes). ¶18 We conclude the family court had the authority to address Husband’s amended counter-motion.

2019See Darnell, 137 Ariz. at 206 . ¶11 Wife also argues that Husband’s motion to set aside was untimely because he failed to show (1) his delay was excusable, (2) he acted promptly in seeking relief, and (3) he had a “meritorious defense” to an award of spousal maintenance, citing Blair v. Burgener, 226 Ariz. 213, 216, ¶ 7 (App. 2010).

2019See Darnell, 137 Ariz. at 206 . ¶11 Wife also argues that Husband’s motion to set aside was untimely because he failed to show (1) his delay was excusable, (2) he acted promptly in seeking relief, and (3) he had a “meritorious defense” to an award of spousal maintenance, citing Blair v. Burgener, 226 Ariz. 213, 216, ¶ 7 (App. 2010).

2019On this record, Husband has not shown the superior court failed to consider the required factors in determining the amount of spousal maintenance. ¶7 As to Husband's challenge to the amount of the award, this court must "affirm the judgment if there is any reasonable evidence to support it." Helland, 236 Ariz. at 202, ¶ 22 .

2018Pursuant to Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure 85(C)(2), a motion for relief from judgment must be filed within a "reasonable time." The record supports the court's conclusion that Husband's motion was untimely. ¶7 Husband sought relief under Rule 85(C)(1)(f), which allows the court to relieve a party from a final judgment or order "for any other reason justifying relief." This rule "ha[s] been used liberally in reopening otherwise final court orders where there has been a change in the law affecting the substantial rights of a litigant." Edsall v. Superior Court (Edsall), 143 Ariz. 240, 243

2017MacMillan v. Schwartz, 226 Ariz. 584, 592, ¶ 36 (App. 2011) (citing In re Marriage of Berger, 140 Ariz. 156, 167 (App. 1983)). ¶17 Here, the family court found: (1) a substantial financial disparity between the parties; (2) Husband took an unreasonable legal position; and (3) Husband’s motion for relief from the separation decree was not grounded in fact or based on law.