McDonald v. McDonald
1 CA-CV 17-0073-FC
Ariz. Ct. App.Dec 14, 2017Background
- Married in 1995; one minor child. During marriage they ran a boat/trailer consignment business; Wife later alleged Husband misappropriated funds and hid assets.
- Wife filed for legal separation (Sept 2015) alleging financial misconduct; Husband converted to dissolution and relocated to Oregon. Wife remained dealing with creditors and lawsuits.
- Trial was set, continued once at Husband’s request; Husband’s counsel later moved to withdraw (granted), and Husband then moved to continue nine days before trial claiming need for new counsel. Court denied continuance.
- Husband did not appear at the November 9, 2016 trial; court proceeded in absentia, found Husband in default, adopted parenting plan, divided assets, allocated debts and entered maintenance and child support orders, and found Husband committed waste/fraudulent transfers.
- Husband’s motions for new trial and other relief were denied; after post-trial proceedings the court amended judgment and entered a $62,000 judgment against Husband. Husband appealed; Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Wife's Argument | Husband's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court abused discretion by allowing counsel to withdraw, denying continuance, and trying case in Husband’s absence | Court acted within discretion; Husband had delayed, counsel withdrew for cause, and Husband gave no good cause for continuance | Withdrawal and denial of continuance deprived Husband of fair trial | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; proceeding in absentia proper where party deliberately failed to appear and gave no justification |
| Alleged judicial conflict/bias due to Wife’s alleged relationships with court staff | No evidence of improper relationships; Wife denies allegation | Asserted court bias based on alleged relationships (no record support) | Affirmed: claim unsupported by record; not considered |
| Fairness of property division and allocation of debts (including claims Husband hid/removed assets) | Wife sought allocation against Husband based on misconduct; court allocated most debts/taxes to Husband and awarded Wife assets/turnover/judgment for missing items | Argued division was unfair and unspecified errors in allocation | Affirmed: family court’s equitable division supported by record and deference; appellant failed to provide trial transcript or specific argument |
| Alleged false evidence and new issues raised on appeal | Wife denies falsity; court relied on admitted evidence and credibility findings | Asserted Wife submitted false sworn statements and raised new issues in reply | Affirmed: allegations unsupported by record; new issues waived on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Hurd v. Hurd, 223 Ariz. 48 (App. 2009) (substantial-evidence standard and deference to family court findings)
- Deatherage v. Deatherage, 140 Ariz. 317 (App. 1984) (abuse-of-discretion review for family court rulings)
- Christy A. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 217 Ariz. 299 (App. 2007) (courts will not interfere with discretionary family court management absent miscarriage of justice)
- Hales v. Pittman, 118 Ariz. 305 (1978) (broad trial management discretion)
- Valento v. Valento, 225 Ariz. 477 (App. 2010) (family court discretion in equitable property division)
- Flower v. Flower, 223 Ariz. 531 (App. 2010) (factors permitting unequal property division, including fraudulent disposition)
- Ace Auto. Prods., Inc. v. Van Duyne, 156 Ariz. 140 (App. 1987) (party must show prejudice from alleged error)
- Baker v. Baker, 183 Ariz. 70 (App. 1995) (appellant’s duty to provide record/transcript on appeal)