Coburn v. Rhodig
1 CA-CV 16-0399-FC
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Aug 3, 2017Background
- Parties divorced in 2010 by consent decree that ordered Husband (Michael Rhodig) to pay $3,000/month spousal maintenance for 60 months; the decree stated maintenance was non-modifiable.
- Husband fell into arrears; in December 2010 the parties executed a written agreement where Husband paid a $5,000 lump sum plus $1,000/month for 12 months and Wife expressly agreed to “waive any other unpaid support.”
- Husband fully performed under the December 2010 agreement. In December 2014 Wife petitioned to enforce the original decree arrearages, claiming duress and that she could not locate Husband earlier.
- Husband asserted the December 2010 agreement was enforceable and raised equitable defenses (waiver, estoppel, laches); he did not move to modify the original decree.
- The superior court declined to consider the agreement or equitable defenses, citing A.R.S. § 25-317(G) and In re Marriage of Waldren, granted Wife’s petition, and entered an arrearage judgment; Husband appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wife) | Defendant's Argument (Husband) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether A.R.S. § 25-317(G) bars the court from considering a post-decree written agreement or equitable defenses to enforcement of non-modifiable spousal maintenance | § 25-317(G) and Waldren strip the court of jurisdiction to alter or affect maintenance terms, so the court cannot consider agreement/defenses | The written agreement and equitable defenses do not seek to modify the decree; they are defenses to enforcement and therefore are reviewable | The jurisdictional bar in § 25-317(G) does not prevent the court from adjudicating equitable defenses or the validity of a separate written agreement because doing so does not modify the decree |
| Whether equitable defenses (waiver, estoppel, laches) can be applied to spousal maintenance arrearages | Equitable defenses are inappropriate because spousal maintenance differs from child support and public policy favors finality and prompt enforcement | Equitable defenses have long been applied to support arrearages; they can apply to spousal maintenance if proven by clear and compelling evidence | Equitable defenses may be applied to spousal maintenance arrearages, subject to the heightened clear-and-compelling-evidence standard |
| Whether the December 2010 written agreement is enforceable as a waiver or superseding agreement | Wife contends the agreement was signed under duress and is therefore invalid | Husband contends the agreement is enforceable under Family Law Rule 69(A) and supersedes arrearages | Court did not decide on the merits; remanded for an evidentiary hearing to resolve validity and factual disputes |
| Whether appellate fees should be awarded | Wife sought fees; argued prevailing policy supports enforcement | Husband sought fees as successful appellant | Court denied attorneys’ fees to both parties but awarded Husband costs on appeal if he complies with ARCAP 21 |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Waldren, 217 Ariz. 173 (Ariz. 2007) (holds A.R.S. § 25-317(G) prevents court from modifying non-modifiable maintenance provisions)
- Ray v. Mangum, 163 Ariz. 329 (Ariz. 1989) (recognizes equitable defenses to support arrearages must be proved by clear and compelling evidence)
- State ex rel. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. v. Dodd, 181 Ariz. 183 (App. 1994) (applies equitable defenses to support arrearages)
- Cordova v. Lucero, 129 Ariz. 184 (App. 1981) (distinguishes modification of support from waiver of arrearages through equitable principles)
- State v. Garcia, 187 Ariz. 527 (App. 1996) (holds laches may apply to support enforcement without undermining child-welfare policy)
- Ames v. Ames, 239 Ariz. 246 (App. 2016) (declines to import child-support statute-of-limitations exception into spousal maintenance context)
- Schroeder v. Schroeder, 161 Ariz. 316 (Ariz. 1989) (discusses public policy underlying limited-duration spousal maintenance)