Sundstrom v. Flatt
418 P.3d 909
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Parents divorced in 2008; the consent decree awarded Mother sole legal decision-making and equal parenting time.
- In late 2014 Mother filed a Petition to Modify Legal Decision-Making, Parenting Time, and Child Support seeking to retain sole legal decision-making and to limit Father’s parenting time.
- Father moved for temporary orders in 2015 requesting sole legal decision-making and later, in advance of the final hearing, filed a pretrial statement requesting sole legal decision-making.
- At the final evidentiary hearing Mother attempted to withdraw her petition; the court denied the withdrawal and proceeded to hear the matter.
- After the hearing the superior court awarded Father sole legal decision-making, allowed Father to amend pleadings under Rule 34(B), and found it had authority because Mother’s petition complied with ARFLP 91(D).
- Mother appealed, arguing the court erred because Father never filed his own petition to modify under A.R.S. § 25-411 or ARFLP 91.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court may award legal decision-making to a party who did not file the petition to modify | Sundstrom: Court erred because Father did not file a petition under §25-411/ARFLP 91 | Father/Court: Neither §25-411 nor ARFLP 91 requires the eventual awardee to be the petitioning party; Mother’s petition satisfied procedural requirements and Father gave notice | The court may award legal decision-making to a non-petitioning party when an adequate petition exists and the opposing party had notice; affirmed |
| Whether Mother was prejudiced by Father’s failure to file a formal petition | Sundstrom: She lacked notice and opportunity to respond to a petition in Father’s name | Father/Court: Mother filed the modifying petition and had notice of Father’s request via temporary orders and pretrial statement; she had chance to respond | No prejudice shown; appellate reversal requires prejudice for §25-411 noncompliance |
| Whether superior court abused discretion by denying Mother’s motion to dismiss her petition | Sundstrom: Sought to withdraw petition before final hearing | Court: Denial within court’s discretion; Rule 46(A) dismissal is discretionary | Denial not reversible error; dismissal is within trial court discretion |
| Whether allowing Father to amend pleadings under Rule 34 was improper | Sundstrom: Father should not have been allowed to amend to seek legal decision-making without filing petition | Court: Amendment unnecessary because Mother’s petition sufficed; court had authority to decide on merits | Amendment issue moot; court had authority based on Mother’s compliant petition |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Dorman, 198 Ariz. 298 (App. 2000) (appellate reversal for §25-411 noncompliance requires showing of prejudice)
- State v. Hansen, 156 Ariz. 291 (1988) (motions to dismiss are within the trial court’s discretion)