Johnston v. Johnston, 1 CA-CV 16-0432-FC

Ursula M. Johnston (Wife) appealed a trial court award of $4,456.16 in attorneys’ fees to John D. Johnston (Husband) after post-decree litigation.
Earlier appeal affirmed denial of Wife’s motion to set aside the dissolution decree but vacated and remanded a prior fee award for recalculation.
While that appeal was pending, Husband petitioned to enforce the decree and sought contempt; the court issued substantive rulings and later entered a final order (Sept. 29, 2015) recalculating fees and awarding additional fees.
Wife continued to file post-decree motions challenging matters the court had previously decided; Husband sought additional fees and vexatious-litigant status.
The trial court found Wife’s continued attempts to modify nonmodifiable rulings unreasonable under A.R.S. § 25-324(A), awarded Husband fees for work after Jan. 12, 2016, and denied vexatious-litigant relief; Wife appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred in awarding $4,456.16 in attorneys’ fees to Husband under A.R.S. § 25-324(A)	Wife: as an unrepresented litigant she did not know she should have appealed prior orders; fee award is improper and punitive	Husband: Wife repeatedly and unreasonably sought modification of final rulings; fees are appropriate given disparity of resources and unreasonable positions	Court: Affirmed. Trial court did not abuse discretion; Wife held to objective reasonableness standard and is bound by procedural rules even pro se

Nydam v. Crawford, 181 Ariz. 101 (App. 1994) (discussing effect of appellee’s failure to file answering brief and discretion to treat as confession of error)
In re Marriage of Berger, 140 Ariz. 156 (App. 1983) (standard of review for attorney-fee awards under family law statutes)
In re Marriage of Williams, 219 Ariz. 546 (App. 2008) (A.R.S. § 25-324(A) requires evaluating litigant positions by an objective reasonableness standard)