Jones v. Jones
1 CA-CV 15-0803-FC
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Nov 22, 2016Background
- Husband and Wife divorced in 2012 by consent decree; the decree awarded Wife the house at 5221 W. Pedro Lane but said nothing about the mortgage debt.
- Husband later sought removal of his name from the mortgage; parties entered a Rule 69 agreement: Husband would quitclaim the house to Wife, Wife would refinance in her sole name by a deadline, and if she failed to refinance the house would be sold.
- Wife missed the refinancing deadline; Husband moved to order sale and the court appointed a real estate commissioner to list the property and directed cooperation.
- Court found Wife in contempt for obstructing showings and negotiations, ordered her to vacate by a date, and directed the commissioner to counter offers.
- The court’s November 5, 2015 minute entry and contemporaneous Judgment amended the consent decree to award the house to Husband and directed that sale proceeds first satisfy community debts, then Husband’s attorney fees and costs, with the remainder split equally.
- Wife appealed; appellate court considered whether the superior court had jurisdiction to amend the property disposition in the consent decree.
Issues
| Issue | Wife's Argument | Husband's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the superior court had jurisdiction to amend the consent decree’s property disposition after it became final | The Judgment rewrote the decree without a Rule 85(C) motion or other basis to reopen the decree; court lacked jurisdiction to modify property settlement | Husband urged affirmance or remand to enforce contempt orders and proceed consistent with court’s directives | Court held it lacked jurisdiction to sua sponte modify the property provisions; the Judgment and that portion of the minute entry were void and vacated |
| Whether the Judgment was appealable | Implied: the decree-modifying Judgment is an appealable order under A.R.S. § 12-2101 | Argued appealability of contempt order; but Department M previously allowed appeal of the Judgment portion | Court found the Judgment appealable under A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(2); contempt order itself was not appealable |
| Whether contempt powers permitted the court to alter property allocation | Wife: contempt powers allow enforcement but do not authorize modification of settled property dispositions absent Rule 85(C) relief | Husband: court’s contempt rulings justified remedial measures to effectuate compliance (requested enforcement consistent with contempt orders) | Court: contempt jurisdiction permits enforcement (including sanctions) but does not authorize reopening or altering property settlement absent proper Rule 85(C) relief |
| Proper remedy when a court acts without jurisdiction to modify a decree | Wife: judgment is void and must be vacated and remanded for enforcement only | Husband: requested vacatur and remand for proceedings consistent with contempt orders | Court vacated the void Judgment and remanded for enforcement proceedings consistent with the opinion; awarded costs to Wife on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Berry v. Superior Court In & For County of Maricopa, 163 Ariz. 507 (civil contempt orders generally not appealable)
- Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc., 221 Ariz. 138 (order that goes beyond contempt may be appealable under § 12-2101)
- Danielson v. Evans, 201 Ariz. 401 (appellate courts review superior court jurisdiction de novo)
- In re Marriage of Dorman, 198 Ariz. 298 (standard of review for jurisdictional questions)
- De Gryse v. De Gryse, 135 Ariz. 335 (property settlements are not subject to modification; need finality)
- Preston v. Denkins, 94 Ariz. 214 (court’s inherent power to vacate/modify is limited by finality and procedural rules)
- LaPrade v. LaPrade, 189 Ariz. 243 (trial court lacks jurisdiction to modify property settlement absent grounds to reopen judgment)
- Solomon v. Findley, 165 Ariz. 45 (actions by a court without jurisdiction are void)