In Re the Marriage Of: Bollermann v. Nowlis, 234 Ariz. 340

Background

Wife and Husband divorced in 2006 and filed multiple post-decree motions; a hearing occurred September 6, 2011.
Four days before the hearing Wife sought reimbursement for 2010–11 expenses; the court did not address those expenses at the hearing.
On November 1, 2011 the family court resolved most pretrial issues and (initially) denied attorneys’ fees, later vacating that fee ruling.
On September 12, 2012 the court entered judgment awarding Wife the 2010–11 expenses and again denied fees.
Wife appealed both the November 1, 2011 and September 12, 2012 orders; the court of appeals dismissed the appeal of the November 1 order as untimely.
Supreme Court granted review to decide whether a family court order that does not dispose of attorneys’ fees and lacks Rule 78(B) language is a final, appealable judgment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a family court order that adjudicates fewer than all claims but does not resolve attorneys’ fees is immediately appealable	Bollermann argued the November 1, 2011 order was final and appealable	Nowlis argued the order was not final because it left a pending fee claim and lacked Rule 78(B) language	The Court held such an order is not final for appeal absent Rule 78(B) language explicitly finding no just reason for delay and directing entry of judgment
Whether Family Rule 78(B) should be interpreted consistent with Civil Rule 54(b)	Bollermann urged appealability despite missing Rule 78(B) language	Nowlis urged application of the same final-judgment standard as in civil cases	The Court applied Rule 54(b) principles to Rule 78(B): finality requires either disposition of fee claims or express Rule 78(B) language
Whether some family orders are "inherently final" and immediately appealable	Bollermann relied on precedents treating certain family orders as effectively final	Nowlis argued that ‘‘inherently final’’ is unworkable and statutory effect does not equal appealability	The Court rejected a broad ‘‘inherently final’’ standard; statutory effectiveness (e.g., dissolution, support) ≠ immediate appealability unless rule requirements met
Whether allowing nondisposition of fees can be manipulated to delay appeals	Bollermann suggested parties could appeal without fee rulings	Nowlis warned parties could avoid filing fee motions to delay finality	The Court noted family courts can set fee-application deadlines or include Rule 78(B) language to prevent strategic delay

Key Cases Cited

Reeck v. Mendoza, 232 Ariz. 299 (App. 2013) (addressed concept of “inherently final” family-court decisions)
Nat’l Broker Assocs. v. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc., 211 Ariz. 210 (App. 2005) (explains Rule 54(b) prohibition on entering final judgment when fee claims remain)
Craig v. Craig, 227 Ariz. 105 (App. 2011) (notice of appeal filed before final judgment is a nullity)
Matter of Brother’s Estate, 134 Ariz. 536 (App. 1982) (distinguishes statutory effectiveness of an order from its appealability)