McClendon v. McClendon
1 CA-CV 17-0049-FC
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Dec 7, 2017Background
- Parties divorced by consent decree in 2007 after a 30-year marriage; husband ordered to pay indefinite spousal maintenance of $5,500/month and wife to receive her share of ASRS retirement accruals from the marriage.
- Husband retired from municipal employment in Feb. 2014 and moved to California; wife had begun receiving her share of ASRS benefits and obtained full-time employment before 2014.
- In Aug. 2014 the parties entered a binding Rule 69 agreement reducing maintenance to $4,000/month; the court entered an order implementing that agreement (2014 Order).
- Husband petitioned in 2016 to further reduce maintenance; at hearing the court compared circumstances to the 2007 consent decree (not the 2014 Order), found a substantial and continuing change, and reduced maintenance to $2,000/month for 12 months.
- Wife appealed, arguing the court should have assessed changed circumstances against the 2014 Order, not the 2007 decree, and contested the 12-month limit and denial of attorney’s fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Husband) | Defendant's Argument (Wife) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper baseline for assessing changed circumstances under A.R.S. § 25-327 | Compare current circumstances to the 2007 consent decree; the 2014 agreement was not a court-determined modification that fixes the baseline | Compare to the 2014 Order; the latest decree respecting maintenance is the operative baseline and facts relied on in 2014 cannot support a later modification | Court erred: baseline is the latest court order in effect (the 2014 Order); changes that existed and were relied on in 2014 cannot be re-used to justify a 2016 modification |
| Whether the same facts may support successive modifications | Husband says yes if court did not independently adjudicate in 2014 | Wife says no; res judicata and § 25-327 bar successive modification based on pre-existing facts | Held that the same pre-2014 facts cannot support a 2016 modification; petitioner must prove new substantial and continuing changes after 2014 |
| Validity of Rule 69 agreement as a court order for modification purposes | Husband: 2014 agreement was a private settlement, not a court-determined modification | Wife: A court may enter a final order enforcing a Rule 69 agreement; such an order is a decree respecting maintenance | Held that court-ordered modifications via Rule 69 are "court-determined" and serve as the operative decree for future modification analysis |
| Attorney’s fees denial by superior court | Husband opposed fees | Wife requested fees under A.R.S. § 25-324 | Trial-court denial vacated; matter remanded for reconsideration of fees; appellate court awarded wife reasonable attorney fees on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Scott v. Scott, 121 Ariz. 492 (1979) (changed circumstances must occur after the decree to be relevant to modification)
- Richards v. Richards, 137 Ariz. 225 (App. 1983) (discusses comparing alleged changes to circumstances at dissolution)
- In re Marriage of Rowe, 117 Ariz. 474 (1978) (res judicata bars modification based on facts that could have been raised earlier)
- Sharp v. Sharp, 179 Ariz. 205 (App. 1994) (court may enforce and treat a fair voluntary settlement as part of its judgment)