Hanger v. Hanger, 1 CA-CV 17-0721-FC

Background

Father (Joel Hanger) and Mother stipulated at a conference to a child support order requiring Father to pay $508.87/month effective October 1, 2017; the parties’ submitted worksheet listed Father’s income as $75,000 and Mother’s as about $34,500.
Within a week Father filed motions to set aside the stipulated order under ARFLP 85, alleging coercion, misconduct by Mother’s counsel and the conference officer, and surprise communications; he also filed a simplified modification petition and attached a worksheet listing his annual income as $32,181 (showing $0 support).
The superior court denied Father’s motions to set aside and summarily denied his petition to modify child support; Father appealed.
The Court of Appeals reviewed denial of the set-aside for abuse of discretion and petitions to modify for abuse of discretion (factual findings reviewed for clear error; legal conclusions de novo).
The Court concluded the stipulated written agreement was presumptively valid; Father did not meet his burden to show coercion or other defects sufficient to set aside the agreement.
The Court held, however, that Father’s amended petition (with a worksheet using much lower income) alleged a >=15% variation from the existing order and therefore merited an evidentiary hearing under the Guidelines’ simplified modification procedure; the denial of that petition was reversed and remanded.

Issues

Issue	Father’s Argument	Mother’s Argument	Held
Whether the court abused its discretion by denying Father’s motion to set aside the stipulated order (coercion/misconduct)	Father said he was coerced/ threatened into signing and surprised by communications and officer misconduct	Mother disputed coercion; said she warned Father she would seek attribution based on past earnings and the officer only warned of likely higher attribution if no settlement	Denial affirmed: written ARFLP 69 stipulation presumed valid; Father failed to rebut presumption with undisputed proof of coercion
Whether the court improperly attributed income or made an upward deviation from Guidelines without explanation	Father argued the stipulated order effectively attributed income and deviated upward without required explanation	Mother pointed out Father agreed under penalty of perjury that income was $75,000 and the order reflected that stipulation	Denial affirmed: court did not attribute income or deviate; it enforced the parties’ stipulated worksheet
Whether Father’s amended petition to modify showed a substantial and continuing change warranting simplified modification (>=15% variation)	Father’s worksheet showing $32,181 income produced a >15% reduction in support versus the stipulated $508.87, so he sought simplified modification	Mother relied on the prior stipulation and argued court could attribute income or deny modification without hearing	Denial reversed: petition showed a colorable >=15% variation; court must hold evidentiary hearing to determine if modification is warranted
Whether Mother is entitled to attorney’s fees on appeal	Mother requested fees under A.R.S. § 25-324(A)	Father argued appeal unsuccessful on set-aside claims	Fees denied: Court declined to award fees because Father is entitled to a hearing on his modification petition

Key Cases Cited

Duckstein v. Wolf, 230 Ariz. 227 (2012) (standard of review for denial of motion to set aside is abuse of discretion)
Coconino Pulp & Paper Co. v. Marvin, 83 Ariz. 117 (1957) (presumption of validity for judgments and relief-from-judgment principles)
Duwyenie v. Moran, 220 Ariz. 501 (2009) (party’s change of heart is not grounds for relief from a consent order)
Nia v. Nia, 242 Ariz. 419 (2017) (standards of review for modification and interpretation of Guidelines)
Engel v. Landman, 221 Ariz. 504 (2009) (court may attribute income in appropriate circumstances)
Birnstihl v. Birnstihl, 243 Ariz. 588 (2018) (explaining need for evidentiary hearing when a colorable 15% variation is shown)
Dawson v. Withycombe, 216 Ariz. 84 (2007) (failure to raise argument in opening brief forfeits issue on appeal)