Stein v. Stein, 238 Ariz. 548

Jay David Stein (Father) and Jill Lynn Stein (Mother) divorced in 2014; they have four minor children. Father’s annual gross income was found to be over $3 million; Mother’s income was found to be about $60,000 and she did not work outside the home at dissolution.
Parties had a premarital agreement waiving spousal maintenance.
Family court awarded Father sole legal decision-making, primary residential parent status, and limited supervised parenting time to Mother (one weekday afternoon and alternating weekend overnights); Father was ordered to pay 90% of supervision costs.
The court applied a substantial upward deviation from the Arizona Child Support Guidelines, ordering Father to pay $7,500 per month in child support (the Guidelines calculation produced $184.24).
Father timely requested findings of fact and conclusions of law under Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure 82(A); after entry of the decree he sought additional findings and a new trial. The court granted additional findings only as to attorney fees and denied the new trial motion.
Father appealed, arguing the court failed to set forth factual findings explaining its departure from the Guidelines and abused its discretion in setting child support at $7,500/month.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Stein — Father)	Defendant's Argument (Stein — Mother)	Held
Whether the family court complied with Rule 82(A) by providing adequate factual findings supporting a substantial deviation from the Child Support Guidelines	Father argued the court’s findings were insufficient to explain how it reached the $7,500 figure and that, because he requested special findings, the court was required to state the factual and arithmetic basis for the deviation	Mother argued the court’s statement of significant income disparity and pronouncement that deviation was in children’s best interests sufficed	Court held the findings were insufficient under Rule 82(A); vacated the support order and remanded for additional findings explaining how the $7,500 figure was reached
Whether the family court abused its discretion in awarding child support nearly 40 times the Guidelines amount	Father argued the $7,500 award was arbitrary and lacked a discernible factual/arithmetic basis, making meaningful appellate review impossible	Mother relied on the court’s conclusion that significant disparity in financial resources justified deviation and that the court considered relevant factors	Court treated award as a discretionary deviation but concluded it could not review the amount because the factual/arithmetic basis was not set forth; remand required for findings

Hetherington v. Hetherington, 220 Ariz. 16 (App. 2008) (standard of review for child support abuse-of-discretion)
Elliott v. Elliott, 165 Ariz. 128 (App. 1990) (Rule 82(A) requires sufficient findings so appellate court can determine basis of award)
Miller v. Board of Supervisors, 175 Ariz. 296 (1993) (appellate courts need adequate factual basis to review trial court decisions; remand for additional findings when appropriate)
Reed v. Reed, 154 Ariz. 101 (App. 1987) (trial court must set forth arithmetic/factual basis for increased monthly support to satisfy Rule 52/82 requirements)
Kelsey v. Kelsey, 186 Ariz. 49 (App. 1996) (appellate court may not affirm by inferring a possible basis from the record when Rule 82(A) findings are lacking)
Ritchie v. Krasner, 221 Ariz. 288 (App. 2009) (issues not raised in opening brief are waived)