Lehn v. Al-Thanayyan
246 Ariz. 277
Ariz. Ct. App.2019Background
- Parties: Tiffany Lehn (Mother, U.S. citizen) and Ahmad Al-Thanayyan (Father, Kuwaiti citizen and U.S. lawful permanent resident); married 2006, lived in Kuwait and Arizona; two dual‑citizen children.
- Father worked in Kuwait and was associated with several Kuwaiti businesses; Mother alleged Father concealed ownership and income from those entities and did not comply with discovery.
- Family court found Father likely had undisclosed business interests/income benefiting the community, making valuation impossible, and found he hid assets.
- Mother feared international abduction if Father exercised parenting time in Kuwait (Kuwait not a Hague Convention signatory); Mother sought parenting time limited to Arizona and surrender of travel documents; court required $2.5 million cash bond per child for parenting time in Kuwait.
- Family court allocated community debt ($241,000) to Father and 85% of a $21,132 account to Mother as compensation for the hidden Kuwaiti interests, and awarded Mother attorneys’ fees due to a substantial financial disparity. Father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Property allocation of community assets/debt | Allocation to compensate Mother for Father’s undisclosed Kuwaiti business interest and hidden income | Allocation unequal and unsupported because court did not find present ownership or value the businesses | Affirmed — court acted within discretion; concealment justified unequal award under A.R.S. § 25‑318(C) and related precedent |
| Authority to impose parenting‑time conditions (cash bond) | Court may condition parenting time to protect children’s best interests and deter abduction; bond is appropriate security | Court lacked authority to require $2.5M cash bond per child; undue interference with custody rights | Affirmed — court has authority under A.R.S. § 25‑403.02(D) to impose conditions; bond permissible to deter abduction |
| Amount of bond (excessive) | Bond amount set to deter abduction given Father’s undisclosed Kuwaiti resources and the high risk of non‑return | Amount unrelated to litigation costs and excessive given Father’s known assets/income | Affirmed — purpose is deterrence, not fee recovery; large bond supported by risk and Father’s nondisclosure |
| Award of attorneys’ fees to Mother | Fees appropriate because substantial disparity in resources and Father took unreasonable litigation positions (concealment) | Court failed to properly consider resources and Father’s ability to pay; award was abuse of discretion | Affirmed — appellate court defers to family court fact findings; disparity and concealment supported fee award under A.R.S. § 25‑324 |
Key Cases Cited
- Abbott v. Abbott, 560 U.S. 1 (2010) (explaining Hague Convention’s purpose to secure return of wrongfully removed children)
- Boncoskey v. Boncoskey, 216 Ariz. 448 (App. 2007) (family court’s broad discretion in property division)
- Toth v. Toth, 190 Ariz. 218 (1997) (equitable division of community property; court may consider concealment)
- Hrudka v. Hrudka, 186 Ariz. 84 (App. 1995) (obstructionist behavior permits awarding greater share to non‑concealing spouse)
- Badertscher v. Badertscher, 10 Ariz. App. 501 (1969) (upholding use of security to assure compliance with parenting orders)
- Katare v. Katare, 283 P.3d 546 (Wash. 2012) (upholding restrictions and security to prevent international parental abduction)
- Califano v. Aznavorian, 439 U.S. 170 (1978) (recognizing courts may regulate international travel within due process bounds)