Klien v. York
1 CA-CV 15-0543-FC
Ariz. Ct. App.Mar 7, 2017Background
- Father and Mother divorced in June 2010; family court held enforcement hearing in Oct. 2013 finding Father in violation and awarding Mother spousal maintenance arrears and unreimbursed medical expenses.
- February 2014 order affirmed Father’s support obligations; requests to modify support and hold Mother in contempt were denied.
- May 2015 Mother moved to amend the IWO to identify Father’s current employer; hearing scheduled for July 6, 2015; Father did not appear and court granted amendment.
- Father timely appealed the July 2015 IWO amendment order; proceedings regarding the 2013 and 2014 orders were dismissed for lack of timely appeal.
- Arizona appellate court affirmed the IWO amendment, held no error in service given notice to Father, and emphasized Father’s failure to update address.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over earlier orders | Father timely appealed only the IWO amendment order. | Earlier orders were final and appealable; timeliness barred review. | Appeal of Oct. 2013 and Feb. 2014 orders dismissed for lack of timely appeal. |
| Sufficiency of notice for IWO amendment | Notices sufficiently served; mailing presumed proper under rule. | Any deficiencies in service? not alleged; notice reasonable. | Father received reasonable notice; service by mail presumptively valid; no error in amendment. |
| Address update and notice adequacy | Father failed to timely update address per court rules; risk of non-delivery rests with him. | N/A or not argued differently. | Failure to update address did not void the order; judgment upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lubbehusen v. Lubbehusen, 16 Ariz. App. 45 (1971) (continuing enforcement jurisdiction; no new right created by enforcement)
- Bruce v. Froeb, 15 Ariz. App. 306 (1971) (enforcement of support judgments; service not creating new burden)
- Edwards v. Young, 107 Ariz. 283 (1971) (timeliness affects appellate jurisdiction)
- Daou v. Harris, 139 Ariz. 353 (1984) (judgment void for lack of proper service; repair necessary)
- Neal v. Neal, 116 Ariz. 590 (1977) (addressed judicial notice presumptions in supporting orders)
- Endischee v. Endischee, 141 Ariz. 77 (App. 1984) (void judgment if lack of jurisdiction due to service)
- Koven v. Saberdyne Sys., Inc., 128 Ariz. 318 (App. 1980) (service requirements and notice implications)