cases and other
may be found at
sanctions pursuant to A.R.S. §
12-349 and Ariz.R.Civ.P. 11 are not
“damages awarded” for purposes
of calculating a supersedeas bond,
pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2108(A)
and ARIZ.R.CIV.APP.P. 7(a)( 4)(A).
Kresock v. Hon. Gordon/DePaoli, 1
CA-SA 16-0026, 3/17/16.
Supersedeas bond in family
law appeal must be set in full
amount of “damages awarded,”
which means total amount of funds
awarded in property division in
decree, even if payment is to be
made in installments. Even though
awards in divorce proceedings are
not typically referred to as “
damages,” setting the bond in the
amount of the full award under the
decree is appropriate for reason that
the spirit and purpose of A.R.S. §
12-2108(A)( 1) and ARCAP 7(a)
( 4)(A) are served in that wife is pro-
tected from the risk that the funds
will have been dissipated during
pendency of the appeal and hus-
band is protected from enforcement
of the judgment pending the appeal.
Bobrow v. Hon. Herrod/Bobrow, 1
CA-SA 15-0170, 2/4/16.
COURT OF APPEALS FAMILY LAW
Collection of an unpaid spousal maintenance order is subject to
a three-year statute of limitations
established by A.R.S. § 25-553(A).
Where the order does not establish
a specific beginning date for payment, the order becomes effective
upon entry of the order. Such an
order is not so ambiguous as to
create a “dispute” barring dismissal
of collection efforts pursuant to
A.R.S. § 25-553(C). Ames v. Ames,
1 CA-CV 15-0013 FC, 3/10/16.
The one-year rule under A.R. S.
§ 25-411(A) that precludes a
petition to modify parenting time
or legal decision-making applies
to relocation cases if parenting
time would be affected. If a party
contends that a settlement agreement was reached pursuant to Rule
69, ARFLP, the trial court must hold
an evidentiary hearing to determine
whether such should be enforced
pursuant to A.R.S. § 25-317. The
contention that such agreement
was reached is not precluded from
evidence pursuant to Rule 408,
ARIZ.R.EVID. An award of attorney
fees must be supported by evidence
from the record regardless of
whether findings of fact are requested. Murray v. Murray, 1 CA-CV
15-0170 FC, 2/4/2016.
Burden is on grandparent/
third-party seeking visitation to
show that a fit parent’s decision
to deny visitation would substantially impair the child’s best interest. A parent who opposes visitation
by a third party does not bear the
burden of proof under A.R.S. §
25-409. “Special weight” pursuant
to § 25-409 means the party that is
seeking visitation must prove that a
fit parent’s decision to deny visitation would substantially impair the
child’s best interests. Goodman v.
Forsen, 1 CA-CV 14–0844 FC,
COURT OF APPEALS JUVENILE LAW
In considering whether to terminate father’s parental rights to
an infant child on the grounds of
father’s 2.5-year prison sentence,
the trial court was permitted to consider, but not required to consider,
the possibility that father might
qualify for an early release from
incarceration. Jeffrey P. v. DES, S.P.,
1 CA-JV 15-0031, 3/1/16.
indicates a dissent.
GEICO contracts with various membership entities and other organizations, but these entities do not underwrite the offered insurance products. Some discounts, coverages, payment plans and features are not available in
all states or all GEICO companies. Discount amount varies in some states. One group discount applicable per policy. Coverage is individual. In New York a premium reduction may be available. GEICO may not be involved in a
formal relationship with each organization; however, you still may qualify for a special discount based on your membership, employment or affiliation with those organizations. GEICO is a registered service mark of
Government Employees Insurance Company, Washington, D.C. 20076; a Berkshire Hathaway Inc. subsidiary. GEICO Gecko image © 1999-2015. © 2015 GEICO
As a State Bar of Arizona member you may be
eligible for a special discount with GEICO.
WE’RE IN THE BUSINESS
OF SAVING YOU MORE.
geico.com/bar/sba | 1-800-368-2734
A SUBSIDIARY OF BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC.