Myrick v. Maloney
235 Ariz. 491
Ariz. Ct. App.2014Background
- Petitioner Quentin Myrick filed to modify parenting time in June 2013; Respondent Victoria Maloney counter-petitioned to modify child support and sought attorney fees.
- Maloney sought nearly $5,800 in fees, claiming a substantial disparity in resources (Myrick earning >$7,000/month; Maloney a full‑time student earning ~$1,350/month).
- Myrick opposed, arguing Maloney’s unreasonable positions forced the proceedings; Maloney did not file a reply or request findings under Rule 82(A).
- The trial court denied Maloney’s fee request in a signed ruling without making express findings; Maloney appealed the denial.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed the denial under the applicable statutes for fee awards in family-law proceedings and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Maloney) | Defendant's Argument (Myrick) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 25-324(A) required awarding fees given financial disparity | Maloney: substantial disparity in resources entitles her to fees | Myrick: Maloney’s unreasonable positions justified denial | Court: Disparity is a factor but not dispositive; § 25-324 also requires consideration of reasonableness of positions and awards are discretionary; denial not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether trial court erred by not making findings supporting denial under § 25-324(A) | Maloney: absence of findings shows error, especially to show she was not unreasonable | Myrick: no findings required absent timely request; Maloney failed to seek findings or respond | Court: No obligation to make findings unless requested; failure to request or preserve issue waives challenge |
| Whether § 25-403.08 authorized a final fee award post‑hearing | Maloney: alternatively sought fees under § 25-403.08 | Myrick: statute is for temporary/preparation orders, not final awards | Court: § 25-403.08 applies to temporary/preparatory orders (to obtain representation/prepare evidence); not a basis for final fee award here; court did not err |
| Whether appellate fees should be awarded under § 25-324(A) | Both parties requested appellate fees | Opposing positions argued relative reasonableness/finances | Court: considered parties’ positions and finances and declined in its discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Mangan v. Mangan, 227 Ariz. 346 (App. 2011) (standard of review for § 25-324(A) fee awards)
- Magee v. Magee, 206 Ariz. 589 (App. 2004) (§ 25-324 does not require showing actual inability to pay; financial disparity suffices as a factor)
- In re Marriage of Robinson & Thiel, 201 Ariz. 328 (App. 2001) (discussed prior case law on fee awards but not establishing statutory eligibility)
- Roden v. Roden, 190 Ariz. 407 (App. 1997) (earlier precedent emphasizing financial resources as a basis for fee awards under prior statute)
- MacMillan v. Schwartz, 226 Ariz. 584 (App. 2011) (no obligation to make factual findings under § 25-324 absent a request)
- Higgins v. Higgins, 194 Ariz. 266 (App. 1999) (discussed predecessor to § 25-403.08 but any reliance there was dicta)
- Fry v. Garcia, 213 Ariz. 70 (App. 2006) (appellate exercise of discretion in awarding fees after weighing factors)