Heidbreder v. Heidbreder
230 Ariz. 377
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Mother and Father dissolved their marriage in 2010; joint legal custody with Mother as primary residential parent; Father paid $1000/month in child support under final decree.
- Mother petitioned in 2010 to modify parenting time to supervised and to seek sole legal custody; court granted sole custody to Mother and kept Father’s parenting time supervised.
- During the hearing, the court sua sponte addressed child support and issued an order reducing Father’s child support from $1000 to $500 retroactive to April 1, 2011.
- Mother appealed challenging the court’s authority to modify child support and the lack of notice.
- Arizona statutory framework requires addressing child support when custody is modified; notice and opportunity to be heard are required before modification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court had authority to modify child support when altering custody. | Mother argues no authority to modify since no petition. | Father/now Mother argues statute requires addressing child support with custody modification. | Court had authority to modify under A.R.S. §§ 25-403.09 and 25-503(E). |
| Whether modification of child support sua sponte without petition violated due process. | Mother contends she lacked notice and opportunity to be heard. | Court followed applicable statutes and procedures. | Modification without adequate notice violated due process; vacated and remanded for proper proceedings. |
| Whether the notice and procedural groundwork allowed for a meaningful hearing on child support. | Mother was unprepared and denied a full opportunity to present evidence. | Procedural rules permit addressing child support within custody modification. | Due process required full opportunity to present evidence; remand for briefing/hearing. |
| What is the effective date of the modified child support order when no petition is filed. | Modification timing tied to petition date. | Statutory dates permit earlier effective date with service. | Modification begins the first day of the month after entry unless otherwise ordered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Randolph v. Howard, 16 Ariz.App. 118, 491 P.2d 841 (1971) (Ariz. App. 1971) (child support provisions may be modified by the court)
- Wallace v. Shields, 175 Ariz. 166, 854 P.2d 1152 (App.1992) (Ariz. App. 1992) (due process notice and opportunity to be heard required)
- Cook v. Losnegard, 228 Ariz. 202, 265 P.3d 384 (App.2011) (Ariz. App. 2011) (reversed modification for inadequate notice)
- Bonito Partners, L.L.C. v. City of Flagstaff, 229 Ariz. 75, 270 P.3d 902 (App.2012) (Ariz. App. 2012) (interpret statutes on related subject as one law)
- Carlton v. Emhardt, 138 Ariz. 353, 674 P.2d 907 (App.1983) (Ariz. App. 1983) (pretrial statement controls but trial may modify to prevent manifest injustice)
- Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Dini, 169 Ariz. 555, 821 P.2d 216 (App.1991) (Ariz. App. 1991) (pretrial procedure relevance to issues in trial)