McNeil v. Hoskyns
236 Ariz. 173
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Married in 1985; dissolution petition in 2005 with a decree adopting an agreement for $5,000/month spousal support that was stated as non-modifiable.
- Denture-owner Husband’s automatic withdrawals caused 17 months of double spousal-support payments to Wife, which Wife knew about but did not disclose.
- At dissolution trial in May 2007, parties orally agreed to $5,000/month spousal support for six more years starting June 2007, with non-modifiable terms; the court approved this in October 2007.
- Wife later failed to disclose the overpayments; by 2009 she sought enforcement while Husband had overpaid by tens of thousands.
- In August 2011, the superior court found Wife committed fraud on the court in the 2007 Rule 69 agreement and in later filings, vacated the post-decree arrearages, terminated spousal maintenance as of May 1, 2010, and imposed sanctions and fees.
- Court affirms termination of non-modifiable spousal maintenance due to fraud on the court and allows modification despite § 25-317(G).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 25-317(G) bars modification of a non-modifiable maintenance term. | McNeil contends § 25-317(G) prevents modification. | Hoskyns argues the non-modifiable term is unalterable absent fraud. | Fraud on the court voids the non-modification clause; court may modify. |
| Whether fraud on the court can render a non-modifiable maintenance provision modifiable. | Fraud by Wife in presenting the decree undermines modification bar. | Fraud on the court is not enough to void the non-modification clause. | Yes; fraud on the court defeats the bar to modification. |
| What is the nature of the fraud found and the resulting relief. | Wife concealed overpayments to manipulate outcomes. | N/A. | Fraud found; 2010–2012 orders vacated, maintenance terminated, sanctions imposed. |
| Is post-decree conduct sanctionable and recoverable as fees? | N/A. | N/A. | Sanctions and fees warranted; continued appellate fee requests denied without prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Waldren v. Waldren, 217 Ariz. 173, 171 P.3d 1214 (Ariz. 2007) (modification barred by non-modification clause may be overridden by fraud on court)
- Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944) (fraud on the court injures the integrity of the judicial process)
- Bates v. Bates, 1 Ariz. App. 165, 400 P.2d 593 (Ariz. App. 1965) (extrinsic fraud may warrant equitable relief)
- Cypress on Sunland Homeowners Ass'n v. Orlandini, 227 Ariz. 288, 257 P.3d 1168 (Ariz. App. 2011) (fraud on the court can justify relief from judgment)
- Gordon v. Gordon, 35 Ariz. 357, 278 P.2d 375 (Ariz. 1929) (fraud on court by misrepresentation in pleadings)
- Dockery v. Cent. Arizona Power & Light Co., 45 Ariz. 434, 45 P.2d 656 (Ariz. 1935) (fraud on the court as basis for relief)
- Robinson v. Audi Aktiengesellschaft, 56 F.3d 1259 (10th Cir. 1995) (perjury and fraud on court as obstacles to final judgments)