Soldwedel v. Soldwedel
1 CA-CV 20-0326-FC
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Jun 24, 2021Background
- Parties executed a 2010 premarital agreement and an amendment that provided for spousal maintenance, allocated tax treatment (deductible to Husband, taxable to Wife), and expressly made maintenance non‑modifiable even if the law changed.
- In 2017 Wife petitioned for dissolution; Husband countered with an annulment claim (fraud, duress, lack of contractual intent) and later raised allegations Wife tried to poison him.
- First trial (2019), limited to the Agreements’ validity and annulment, excluded the poisoning evidence as irrelevant, upheld the Agreements, denied annulment, and the court entered a Rule 78(b) partial final judgment; Husband did not appeal that judgment.
- After a 2017 federal tax‑code change eliminating the deduction for most alimony, Husband moved to rescind the Agreements (mutual mistake / impossibility); the court denied rescission, held a second trial (2020), awarded spousal maintenance and attorney’s fees to Wife, and entered a decree.
- Wife’s post‑decree Rule 83 motion requested assignment/income‑withholding for maintenance under A.R.S. § 25‑504(A); the court denied the motion. Both parties appealed (Husband appealed the decree; Wife cross‑appealed denial of assignment).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wife/Husband as applicable) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction: Can this court review issues tied to the earlier Rule 78(b) partial judgment Husband did not timely appeal? | Wife: earlier Rule 78(b) judgment fixed the Agreements and fees; Husband’s challenges are barred. | Husband: second judgment is appealable; issues in second judgment may be reviewed. | Court: has jurisdiction over the timely appeal of the second judgment and fee award; first Rule 78(b) did not bar review of the second decree. |
| Mutual mistake: Did the 2017 tax change justify rescission for mutual mistake? | Husband: parties mistakenly assumed deduction/taxability would remain; change in law is a mutual mistake. | Wife: tax change occurred after formation; prediction about future law is not a mistake; agreement contemplated law changes. | Held: No mutual mistake. Future tax change was not a fact existing at formation; parties expressly allocated and agreed maintenance non‑modifiable. |
| Impracticability/impossibility: Does the loss of the tax deduction discharge Husband’s duty? | Husband: loss of bargained tax benefit makes performance impracticable, so rescind. | Wife: duty was simply to pay maintenance; loss of tax benefit is not impossibility and the Agreements anticipated law changes. | Held: No discharge. The duty to pay remained possible; the Agreements contemplated law changes and did not make tax benefit a condition of performance. |
| Evidentiary exclusion: Was preclusion of post‑contract poisoning evidence an abuse of discretion? | Husband: poisoning evidence shows intent/fraud and is relevant to unenforceability. | Wife: alleged poisoning occurred after execution and is irrelevant to voluntariness at signing. | Held: No abuse. Fraud in inducement must relate to the time of signing; the post‑execution evidence was irrelevant. |
| Assignment/income‑withholding (Rule 83 / A.R.S. § 25‑504): Must the court order assignment on Wife’s request? | Wife: statute mandates assignment upon request; court should have ordered assignment through clearinghouse. | Husband: court found Wife’s earlier email was insufficient formal request and Husband was voluntarily complying. | Held: Vacated denial of Rule 83 motion. Statute requires assignment upon request; informal request suffices. Remanded to enter assignment/income‑withholding order. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sisemore v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Ariz., 161 Ariz. 564 (App. 1989) (Rule 78(b) language does not automatically make an order appealable on all issues)
- Grosvenor Holdings, L.C. v. Figueroa, 222 Ariz. 588 (App. 2009) (contract interpretation reviewed de novo; enforce clear, unambiguous terms)
- Renner v. Kehl, 150 Ariz. 94 (1986) (applying Restatement rule on mutual mistake to contract rescission)
- 7200 Scottsdale Rd. Gen. Partners v. Kuhn Farm Mach., Inc., 184 Ariz. 341 (App. 1995) (discussing impracticability/impossibility doctrine)
- Spector v. Spector, 23 Ariz. App. 131 (1975) (fraud in inducement affecting voluntariness must exist at time of agreement execution)
- Breitbart‑Napp v. Napp, 216 Ariz. 74 (App. 2007) (prevailing‑party fee clauses in premarital agreements violate public policy)
- Bobrow v. Bobrow, 241 Ariz. 592 (App. 2017) (reaffirming that prevailing‑party stipulations in premarital agreements are void as against public policy)