Camargo v. Camargo, 1 CA-CV 16-0720-FC

Background

Ellen (Mother) petitioned for dissolution; Daniel (Father) initially had counsel but proceeded pro se after counsel withdrew. Trial spanned two days; Father cross‑examined witnesses and intended to testify but did not ultimately do so.
The court entered a partial Rule 69 agreement on the record during day one limited to selling the Geronimo residence; parties were told to reduce other agreements to writing but Father never signed any written agreement.
Mother filed a Rule 69 notice listing additional purported pretrial agreements; Father never signed and later disclaimed those agreements.
After trial the court set a status conference (July 26) to address financial and custody issues; the record contains no proof Father received notice and he did not attend. The court considered arguments at that conference and affirmed temporary orders.
The superior court’s decree accepted the broader Rule 69 agreement (beyond the Geronimo home), awarded Mother sole legal decision‑making, limited parenting time to Father, ordered child/spousal support and other financial allocations, and found contempt; Father’s motion for new trial was denied.

Issues

Issue	Father’s Argument	Mother’s Argument	Held
Whether Father was denied due process at the two‑day trial	Father says he was not given a meaningful opportunity to present his case/testify	Mother points to Father’s opportunity to cross‑examine and the court’s statements that he could present evidence	No due‑process violation at the two‑day trial; Father had opportunity and failed to object or request time
Whether Father was denied due process by lack of notice of the July 26 status conference	Father says he had no notice and was prejudiced because court decided matters without his input	Mother argues the court had actual notice and proceeded appropriately	Court found no record of notice; Father was deprived of opportunity to argue; decree vacated in part and remanded for re‑argument of issues addressed at the conference
Whether the parties entered an enforceable Rule 69 agreement as to property other than the Geronimo home	Father argues he never agreed to other items and did not sign any agreement	Mother contends pretrial negotiations and her filing established the agreements	Court erred: only the Geronimo home was a valid Rule 69 agreement; other property division vacated and remanded for equitable apportionment
Whether trial court’s rulings on custody, parenting time, support, fees, contempt, and past‑due child support must stand	Father contends these rulings were affected by the July 26 error and otherwise incorrect	Mother defends rulings as supported by the record and trial proceedings	Those issues are remanded for reconsideration/argument (due to July 26 notice error); past‑due support also remanded for recalculation after re‑argument

Key Cases Cited

Savord v. Morton, 235 A.3d 256 (Ariz. Ct. App.) (directs de novo review for due process claims in family law proceedings)
Curtis v. Richardson, 212 A.3d 308 (Ariz. Ct. App.) (meaningful participation includes cross‑examination and opportunity to offer evidence)
Tabler v. Indus. Comm’n, 202 A.3d 518 (Ariz. Ct. App.) (review for abuse of discretion on whether parties intended to be bound by agreement)
McNeil v. Hoskyns, 236 A.3d 173 (Ariz. Ct. App.) (trial court’s factual findings on intent reviewed for clear error)
Harris v. Harris, 195 A.3d 559 (Ariz. Ct. App.) (agreements construed in light of parties’ intent and circumstances)
In re Marriage of Flower, 223 A.3d 531 (Ariz. Ct. App.) (community property must be divided fairly and supported by evidence)
Hurd v. Hurd, 223 A.3d 48 (Ariz. Ct. App.) (family court discretionary determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Matos v. City of Phoenix, 176 A.3d 125 (Ariz. Ct. App.) (abuse of discretion standard for denial of new trial)
Berger, 140 A.3d 156 (Ariz. Ct. App.) (standards for reviewing family law discretionary orders)