Chambers v. Fox
1 CA-CV 16-0128-FC
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Feb 9, 2017Background
- Father (James Chambers) and Mother (Veronica Fox) divorced in 2012 and entered a post-decree agreement modifying property division, custody, and child support.
- Father filed petitions (Aug 2014, Jan 2015) seeking to hold Mother in contempt for alleged failures to pay a home equity line and to refinance/sell the marital residence, and to modify child support.
- Father withdrew requests to modify legal decision-making and parenting time before trial; trial occurred November 2015.
- Family court denied Father’s petitions except for a nominal offset toward child support arrearages; Father’s motion for new trial/amendment was denied and he appealed.
- On appeal, the court reviewed the child-support modification claim but dismissed review of the contempt claim for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether family court erred by referring/modifying jurisdiction of child-support petition | Chambers argued court improperly referred the matter to accountability court and erred in finding Mother not underemployed | Mother asserted she was completing advanced training and not yet earning increased income; family court credited her testimony | Court found referral issue moot (court retained the matter) and deferred to trial court credibility findings; affirmed denial of modification |
| Whether Mother should be held in contempt for failing to pay HELOC and refinance/sell residence | Chambers argued Mother violated orders and should be held in contempt | Mother disputed violations; family court declined to hold contempt | Appeal of civil contempt is not reviewable here; that portion of appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether trial court abused discretion denying attorney fees to Father | Chambers argued Mother’s position was unreasonable and fees were warranted under A.R.S. § 25–324(A) | Mother opposed fee award; court denied fees | Appellate court found no abuse of discretion in denying fees after affirming merits; fee denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Delmastro & Eells v. Taco Bell Corp., 228 Ariz. 134 (App. 2011) (briefing and record-citation deficiencies may constitute waiver)
- In re Aubuchon, 233 Ariz. 62 (2013) (arguments lacking adequate explanation or authority are waived)
- Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, 193 Ariz. 343 (App. 1998) (trial court credibility determinations are entitled to deference)
- Berry v. Superior Court (Martone), 163 Ariz. 507 (App. 1989) (civil contempt orders are not appealable)
- Elia v. Pifer, 194 Ariz. 74 (App. 1998) (civil contempt is not subject to direct appeal)
- Stoddard v. Donahoe, 224 Ariz. 152 (App. 2010) (contempt orders must be challenged by special action)
- State ex rel. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. v. Burton, 205 Ariz. 27 (App. 2003) (appellate courts will not overturn trial court legal conclusions when supported by record)