Morrison v. Morrison
1 CA-CV 21-0035-FC
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Oct 14, 2021Background
- Married in 2009 with a prenuptial agreement that provided lump-sum spousal maintenance ($750,000) and $500,000 for a home; four children; Mother was unemployed during the marriage; Father was a technology entrepreneur who entered the marriage with ~ $28M but claimed only ~$2M at dissolution.
- Parties agreed to equal parenting time.
- Competing expert testimony on incomes and children's expenses produced a Guideline child-support figure of $1,494/month.
- The superior court found application of the Guidelines inappropriate, deviated upward based on the children’s prior lavish lifestyle and Father’s resources, and awarded Mother $8,000/month in child support.
- Father appealed, arguing (1) the court failed to make required written findings when deviating, (2) the deviated award lacked evidentiary support, and (3) the court erred in attributing income to both parties.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Mother’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of written findings for deviation | Court failed to make written findings on each §25‑320(D) factor before deviating | Court was only required to make the §25‑320 app. §20(A) findings (inappropriateness, best interests, amount without and with deviation) and to consider the §25‑320(D) factors; the record contains evidence of those factors | Affirmed — court made the required written findings and the record supports that it considered the statutory factors |
| Sufficiency of evidence for $8,000 award (lifestyle/expenses) | Award improperly rests on “lavish lifestyle” and expert calculations contain errors; items (household, nanny, medical) were overstated | Lifestyle is a legitimate §25‑320(D)(3) factor; expert adjusted household expenses for equal parenting and attributed childcare hypothetically; historical spending supported higher needs | Affirmed — evidence supported deviation and the expense attributions were permissible |
| Attribution of Father’s income (capital gain) | Sale proceeds were a one‑time capital gain and should not be treated as recurring income; only $40k/month withdrawals reflect his income | Capital gain produced cash available for living expenses and children’s benefit and may be included as income under the Guidelines | Affirmed — court permissibly attributed the capital gain to Father’s income |
| Attribution of Mother’s income (spousal maintenance/minimum wage) | Court should have attributed lump‑sum spousal maintenance plus minimum wage (combined) to Mother, reducing Father’s Guideline obligation | Court has discretion how to treat lump sums; it attributed $40,750 to Mother (exceeding minimum wage) and considered spousal maintenance evidence | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; any different attribution would be de minimis given income disparity |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelsey v. Kelsey, 186 Ariz. 49 (App. 1996) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for child support awards)
- Hurd v. Hurd, 223 Ariz. 48 (App. 2009) (standard for reviewing factual findings and credibility)
- Clay v. Clay, 208 Ariz. 200 (App. 2004) (de novo review of statutory interpretation of Guidelines)
- Fuentes v. Fuentes, 209 Ariz. 51 (App. 2004) (presumption that court considered factors when record contains relevant evidence)
- Nash v. Nash, 232 Ariz. 473 (App. 2013) (consideration of household expenses and preserving children’s pre‑dissolution standard of living)
- Sherman v. Sherman, 241 Ariz. 110 (App. 2016) (capital gains may be counted as gross income if cash‑like benefits were received and available for expenditures)
- Engel v. Landman, 221 Ariz. 504 (App. 2009) (guidelines permit attributing hypothetical childcare expenses and income when appropriate)
- Burnette v. Bender, 184 Ariz. 301 (App. 1995) (trial court has discretion to treat capital gains as income for child support purposes)