Rinegar v. Rinegar
231 Ariz. 85
Ariz. Ct. App.2012Background
- Wife and Husband married in 1979; Wife earned Qwest retirement assets (pension, non-qualified pension, stock options, 401(k)).
- 2004–2006 dissolution proceedings culminated in a 2006 decree that excluded Qwest assets under a catch-all clause.
- December 2006 QDROs addressed the qualified pension and 401(k) but not the non-qualified pension or stock options.
- January 2010, Husband subpoenaed Qwest; dispute over whether non-qualified pension and stock options were community or Wife’s separate property.
- Husband moved to reopen the decree; court reopened, allocating one-half community interest in the omitted assets and awarded attorney’s fees to Husband.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court had jurisdiction to reopen the decree to allocate omitted assets | Wife argues lack of jurisdiction per Thomas. | Husband contends court had jurisdiction to reopen under ARFLP 85/§25-318. | Court properly exercised jurisdiction to reopen and allocate omitted assets. |
| Whether the non-qualified pension plan and stock options were omitted or covered by catch-all | Wife asserts catch-all included these assets as Wife’s property. | Husband contends assets were omitted community property, not described. | Assets were omitted; catch-all did not description-describe them. |
| Whether delay in seeking relief waived Husband's rights | Delay prejudicial or waived under res 85(C). | Delay not prejudicial; extraordinary injustice would occur otherwise. | Delay did not waive rights; reopening justified to remedy injustice. |
| Whether Attorney’s fees to Husband were properly awarded | Wife argues fees improper based on mischaracterization. | Court based on income disparity and disclosure failures; not an abuse. | Fees upheld; supported by disparity and behavior. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. Thomas, 220 Ariz. 290, 205 P.3d 1137 (App. 2009) (allocation of omitted property may be by reopening or civil action)
- In re Estate of Lamparella, 210 Ariz. 246, 109 P.3d 959 (App. 2005) (catch-all did not apply where assets were described and not omitted)
- State v. Marks, 186 Ariz. 139, 920 P.2d 19 (App. 1996) (unified trial court jurisdiction and non-partitioning of court divisions)
- LaPrade v. LaPrade, 189 Ariz. 243, 941 P.2d 1268 (1997) (abuse of discretion standard for reopening judgments)
- Magee v. Magee, 206 Ariz. 589, 81 P.3d 1048 (App. 2004) (fees may be awarded based on income disparity)
- In re Marriage of Pownall, 197 Ariz. 577, 5 P.3d 911 (App. 2000) (income disparity supports fee awards even if payer not unreasonably acts)
- Gorman v. City of Phoenix, 152 Ariz. 179, 731 P.2d 74 (1987) (extraordinary circumstances required for relief beyond statutory grounds)