Marriage of Ames v. Ames
239 Ariz. 246
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Marriage dissolved by consent decree in June 2003; decree ordered Husband to pay Wife $1,000/month for four years (July 2003–June/July 2007).
- Wife filed a petition to enforce spousal maintenance in May 2014 seeking unpaid arrearages (~$29,673.26 agreed at hearing; she initially claimed ~$46,000+).
- At hearing the parties agreed on the arrearage amount; Husband orally moved to dismiss based on A.R.S. § 25-553 (three-year limit after termination); trial court took matter under advisement and later dismissed.
- Wife moved to amend or for new trial arguing due process violation, that the decree never terminated (no explicit end date), and that emails formed an agreement extending payments under Rule 69; trial court denied the motion.
- On appeal, the court reviewed due process and statutory interpretation issues de novo and affirmed dismissal because Wife’s enforcement petition was filed more than three years after the maintenance order terminated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wife) | Defendant's Argument (Husband) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Due process: ruling on oral motion without written response | Court deprived Wife of opportunity to respond in writing to dismissal motion | Wife had notice, addressed the statute at hearing, and evidence was limited to Wife’s submissions | No due process violation; court did not abuse discretion to rule after hearing |
| Applicability of A.R.S. § 25-553(A) (three-year bar) | Decree lacked explicit start/termination date, so obligation runs until paid in full; § 25-553(A) inapplicable | Decree specified duration (4 years); obligation began when decree entered and terminated by operation of law after four years | § 25-553(A) applies; petition untimely (must have been filed by July 2010) |
| Alleged extension by agreement (Rule 69) | Email exchanges show mutual agreement to continue/pay, which tolled/extended the order | Emails show promises/acknowledgments but no mutually assent to extend the operative period or waive statutory bar | No enforceable written agreement extending termination; emails insufficient to form Rule 69 contract |
| § 25-553(C) (disputed termination / liberal construction) | Any dispute that order did not terminate should bar dismissal; analogy to child support protections | Subsection (C) requires competent evidence of non-termination; unsubstantiated claims cannot defeat statute | § 25-553(C) does not preclude dismissal here; dispute unsupported by competent evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Bonito Partners, L.L.C. v. City of Flagstaff, 229 A.3d 75 (App. 2012) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Baker v. Univ. Physicians Healthcare, 231 A.3d 379 (2013) (statutory interpretation: look first to text)
- Hill-Shafer P’ship v. Chilson Family Trust, 165 A.2d 469 (1990) (contract formation requires objective mutual assent)
- Aksamit v. Krahn, 224 A.3d 68 (App. 2010) (procedural rules interpreted de novo)
- Ariz. Dep’t. of Econ. Sec. v. Hayden, 210 A.3d 522 (2005) (policy and limits on collecting child support arrearages)
- Schroeder v. Schroeder, 161 A.2d 316 (1989) (purpose of spousal maintenance is to encourage independence)
- Rainwater v. Rainwater, 177 A.2d 500 (App. 1993) (public policy favors limiting duration of spousal maintenance)
- Collins v. Stockwell, 137 A.2d 416 (1983) (courts won’t read into statute what legislature didn’t intend)
- Pullen v. Pullen, 223 A.2d 293 (App. 2009) (trial court not required to grant new trial where issues duplicate appealed errors)