Murray v. Murray
239 Ariz. 174
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Parents share joint legal decision-making; January 2014 order modified parenting time (increasing Father's parenting time) but retained joint legal decision-making.
- Mother planned to remarry and relocate with the children from Arizona to Nebraska and gave notice; Father moved to prevent relocation in Feb 2014.
- Superior court granted Father's motion to prevent relocation, relying on A.R.S. § 25-411(A) (one-year waiting rule) and alternatively finding relocation not in children's best interests under § 25-408.
- Mother moved to enforce an alleged written agreement (emails/writing exchanged between parties) permitting relocation; court declined to consider the communications under Ariz. R. Evid. 408 and rejected the agreement as contrary to best interests without taking evidence.
- Mother appealed; appellate court affirmed prevention of relocation under § 25-411, vacated the denial of enforcement of the alleged agreement (remanding for consideration of the writings and a best-interests hearing if an agreement is found), and vacated the award of attorney's fees for lack of findings on financial resources.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether A.R.S. § 25-411(A)'s one-year waiting period bars Mother's relocation request | § 25-411 should not bar a relocation petition; relocation statute § 25-408 governs | One-year bar applies because relocation would necessarily alter parenting time/legal decision-making | Held: § 25-411 applies; Mother must wait one year after parenting-time modification to seek contested relocation that implicates parenting time or legal decision-making — motion to prevent relocation properly granted |
| Whether Mother's proffered emails/writing proving an agreement are inadmissible under Ariz. R. Evid. 408 | Writings prove an enforceable settlement permitting relocation and are admissible to prove the existence of the agreement | Communications are settlement negotiations barred by Rule 408 and not enforceable under Rule 69 unless writing/on-record | Held: Rule 408 does not bar evidence offered to prove existence of a settlement agreement extinguishing claims; the writings may be considered under Rule 69 |
| Whether the court properly refused to enforce the alleged agreement as contrary to children's best interests without taking evidence | If an agreement exists in writing, the court must consider enforcing it but must base any best-interests denial on evidence | Agreement is contrary to children's best interests; court may reject agreements regarding custody/parenting time | Held: Court erred to decide best-interests without hearing evidence; vacated denial of enforcement and remanded for consideration of the writing and an evidentiary best-interests determination if agreement is found |
| Whether the superior court properly awarded Father's attorney fees under A.R.S. § 25-324 | Court failed to consider and make findings on parties' financial resources; fee award improper | Fee award appropriate | Held: Fee award vacated — court made no findings or had no evidence of parties' financial resources; remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Owen v. Blackhawk, 206 Ariz. 418 (App. 2003) (relocation implicating custody/parenting time requires specific findings)
- Vincent v. Nelson, 238 Ariz. 150 (App. 2015) (statutory scheme governing relocation petitions)
- Burris v. City of Phoenix, 179 Ariz. 35 (App. 1994) (Rule 408 does not bar evidence of compromise offered for non-prohibited purposes)
- DeForest v. DeForest, 143 Ariz. 627 (App. 1985) (settlement negotiation evidence admissible for purposes other than proving claim validity)
- Volk v. Brame, 235 Ariz. 462 (App. 2014) (due process requires an evidentiary hearing when best-interests finding turns on contested credibility)
- Magee v. Magee, 206 Ariz. 589 (App. 2004) (standard of review for attorney-fee awards under family-law statute)