Arizona Attorney - June 2016

Detailed summaries of selected cases and other court news may be found at www.azapp.com.

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 MATTERS

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, 1/28/16.

COURT OF APPEALS JUVENILE LAW MATTERS

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