Quijada v. Quijada, 246 Ariz. 217

Parties entered a consent divorce decree (2009) and a stipulated Domestic Relations Order (DRO) dividing Husband’s APSRS pension: Wife was awarded a pro-rata share payable directly by the system "at the same time and in the same manner payments are made to [Husband]."
The DRO limited amendment to facilitating APSRS acceptance and supervising payment; neither party appealed the decree/DRO.
Husband became eligible to retire in late 2014 but continued working and contributing to APSRS; he intends to work at least through 2024.
In 2016 Wife sought enforcement/seeking immediate payment or compensation, arguing Husband’s delay blocked her access to her separate property and relying primarily on Koelsch.
After a three-day evidentiary hearing the family court denied Wife’s request and denied both parties attorneys’ fees; both parties appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court may order immediate payment or otherwise modify a consent decree/DRO to compensate Wife because Husband delayed retirement	Quijada (Wife): Koelsch supports equitable relief where an employee-spouse’s decision to delay retirement deprives the non-employee spouse of otherwise-matured retirement benefits; court should require indemnity or immediate compensation	Husband: The DRO and consent decree control; parties agreed payment would follow Husband’s receipt from APSRS and the decree is final; post-judgment modification requires Rule 85(b) relief which Wife failed to establish	Court: Denied relief. Koelsch governs original contested divisions, not post-judgment modification of an unappealed consent decree/DRO; Wife failed to show special circumstances under Rule 85(b)(6) to reopen the judgment
Whether Husband should be awarded attorneys’ fees under A.R.S. § 25-324(A) for defending Wife’s enforcement motion	Husband: He is the prevailing party and should recover fees; Wife’s claim lacked merit	Wife: Her challenge was colorable and reasonable; fee award not warranted given relative resources and merit of her position	Court: Denied Husband’s fee request. Trial court did not abuse discretion; it found Wife’s position had considerable merit and Husband was in a better economic position, so fee-shifting was not appropriate

Koelsch v. Koelsch, 148 Ariz. 176 (1986) (discusses equitable methods to divide/mature retirement benefits when employee delays retirement; addressed on direct appeal from contested dissolution)
Breitbart-Napp v. Napp, 216 Ariz. 74 (App. 2007) (property-settlement agreements may be subject to relief analogous to civil Rule 60 grounds)
De Gryse v. De Gryse, 135 Ariz. 335 (1983) (articulates strong policy favoring finality of property settlements)
Porter v. Estate of Pigg, 175 Ariz. 194 (1993) (legal error in a dissolution decree does not void it; relief is by timely appeal)