Downham v. Downham
1 CA-CV 16-0164-FC
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Jul 25, 2017Background
- Parties married 24 years; no minor children. Wife unemployed, attending college; Husband worked part-time and received $3,315/month military retirement.
- Wife asked for spousal maintenance ($1,800/month for seven years), designation as SBP (Survivor Benefit Plan) former spouse beneficiary, and attorneys’ fees under A.R.S. § 25-324.
- Superior court denied spousal maintenance, stating it allocated a larger share of community debt to Husband "in lieu of" maintenance, and denied SBP coverage based on Husband’s testimony that a survivor must be a current spouse; denied attorneys’ fees for both parties.
- Six months after the decree the court entered a QDRO acknowledging Wife’s entitlement to the survivor benefit and prohibiting Husband from revoking the elected survivor benefit.
- Wife appealed; Court of Appeals reviews spousal maintenance and fee rulings for abuse of discretion and SBP issues de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Wife's Argument | Husband's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by denying spousal maintenance | Wife lacks sufficient property and cannot be self-sufficient while completing education; marriage length supports award | Court treated unequal property/debt allocation as substitute for maintenance | Reversed — court may not substitute unequal property/debt division for statutory spousal maintenance; remand to decide property division and maintenance separately under § 25-319 |
| Whether court erred by denying SBP survivor coverage | Court can order service member to elect SBP for former spouse; Wife asked the court to direct designation | Husband testified SBP can only name a current spouse and claimed court order would be impossible | Reversed — state court can order election of SBP for former spouse; trial court erred to hold Wife’s claim impossible; remand to consider SBP request |
| Whether court erred denying attorneys’ fees under A.R.S. § 25-324 | Wife argued disparity in incomes justifies fees | Court exercised discretion to deny; disparity alone not dispositive | Vacated for reconsideration on remand — court may revisit fees after resolving maintenance and SBP issues |
| Whether property division/debt allocation may be used in lieu of maintenance | Wife argued allocation was used improperly as substitute | Husband relied on court’s approach to deny maintenance | Court held such substitution unlawful per prior precedent; remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Berger, 140 Ariz. 156 (App. 1983) (standard of review for maintenance)
- Thomas v. Thomas, 142 Ariz. 386 (App. 1984) (view evidence in light most favorable to sustaining ruling)
- Koelsch v. Koelsch, 148 Ariz. 176 (1986) (property division and spousal maintenance are distinct; increased maintenance cannot justify depriving property rights)
- In re Marriage of Foster, 125 Ariz. 208 (App. 1980) (trial court may not substitute unequal property award for spousal maintenance)
- Helland v. Helland, 236 Ariz. 197 (App. 2014) (two-step analysis under § 25-319 for maintenance)
- Richards v. Richards, 137 Ariz. 225 (App. 1983) (state court can require election of SBP coverage for former spouse)
- Myrick v. Maloney, 235 Ariz. 491 (App. 2014) (attorney-fee awards consider financial resources; disparity alone does not mandate fees)
- Hart v. Hart, 220 Ariz. 183 (App. 2009) (remand procedure and scope when reallocation or further proceedings may be required)