Nash v. Nash
232 Ariz. 473
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Marriage of Stephen Nash and Alejandra Nash ended in dissolution; they are wealthy and have three children.
- The superior court held a one-day trial on child support and issued a decree based on guidelines not fully applied.
- Mother sought an upward deviation in total child support beyond the presumptive amount; evidence included expert testimony and detailed expenses.
- The decree divided certain costs (insurance, education, parenting-coordinator fees, and other costs) but did not clearly allocate Total Child Support by the Guidelines, and it imputed income inconsistently.
- The court also sealed proceedings and issued a social-media disparagement order; it later issued a sua sponte order restricting dissemination of court documents.
- On appeal, the Arizona Court of Appeals vacated the child-support calculation and the document-dissemination order but affirmed the social-media disparagement restriction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court properly applied the Guidelines in calculating Total Child Support | Mother Nash argues the court failed to add insurance, education, and childcare to the Basic Obligation and failed to allocate proportionally. | Father Nash contends the end result supports a reasonable arrangement and may have been the same after proper analysis. | Remanded for proper guideline-based calculation and proportional allocation. |
| Whether an upward deviation should have been granted | Mother Nash contends evidence supports an upward deviation beyond the presumptive amount. | Father Nash argues no need for deviation given resources and needs. | Vacated and remanded to assess best-interests-based upward deviation per Guidelines § 8. |
| Whether the social-media disparagement order is constitutional | Mother Nash asserts the order violates First Amendment rights by restricting speech. | Father Nash argues the order is within the parties’ joint custody agreement and serves children’s best interests. | Affirmed; court acted within discretion to curb disparaging public statements likely reaching children. |
| Whether the sua sponte order prohibiting dissemination of documents is valid | Mother Nash argues the order is a broad prior restraint on speech unsupported by findings of necessity. | Father Nash contends the order follows sealing stipulations and protects privacy. | Vacated; order is invalid as overbroad and unsupported by Rule 13(D) findings or First Amendment standards. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hetherington v. Hetherington, 220 Ariz. 16 (App.2008) (abuse of discretion standard for child-support awards)
- McNutt v. McNutt, 203 Ariz. 28 (App.2002) (guidelines-based legal framework for support calculations)
- Little v. Little, 193 Ariz. 518 (App.1999) (Guidelines provide procedural guidance in applying the substantive law)
- In re Patterson, 920 P.2d 450 (Kan.App.1996) (dividing support to reflect equal time-sharing requires proportional allocation)
- Miller v. Schou, 616 So.2d 436 (Fla.1993) (needs of affluent children expand with parental wealth)
- Isaacson v. Isaacson, 792 A.2d 539 (N.J.Super.A.D.2002) (sufficiency of needs beyond bare necessities for wealthy families)
- Montgomery v. Montgomery, 481 N.W.2d 234 (N.D.1992) (needs of wealthy children grow with standard of living)
- Branch v. Jackson, 629 A.2d 170 (Pa.Super.1993) (reasonable needs of affluent children may include non-essentials)
- Harris v. Harris, 714 A.2d 626 (Vt.1998) (affluent-child needs expand with parents’ wealth)