Tauscher v. Hanshew, 1 CA-CV 15-0661-FC

Dissolution of marriage in July 2013; parties resolved their dispute via a handwritten Rule 69 agreement presented to the court.
The family court accepted the Rule 69 agreement, two related provisions on parental communication and summer schedule, and treated them as a Rule 69 settlement.
Mother later refused to sign Father’s proposed consent decree; her attorney withdrew; Mother submitted her own decree.
Court signed Mother’s proposed decree, then Father moved to set aside; status conference conducted and arguments heard.
Court signed Father’s proposed final decree, with Mother appealing; appellate review under A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(1).
Record shows disputed allocations of HELOC debt, civil attorneys’ fees, education accounts, and firearms valuation, all tied to the Rule 69 agreement and final decree.
Custody evaluator’s report language was objected to by Mother; record lacked the report itself to assess prejudice.
Both sides sought appellate costs and fees; court declined to award fees but awarded costs to Father on compliance with ARCAP 21.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Burden of proof on Rule 69 validity	Tauscher (Mother) bears burden	Hanshew (Father) contends Mother bears burden	Burden on challenge lies with Mother; legal standard de novo applied.
Whether the court properly found Rule 69 and Final Decree fair	Court erred in denying evidentiary development	Record supported fairness given under-oath admissions	No abuse of discretion; record supports fairness.
Adequacy of evidentiary process for disputed assets	Discrepancies in HELOC, fees, and firearms were unresolved	Record showed Mother understood terms; disputes not material to fairness	Trial court did not need additional evidentiary hearing; proper discretion exercised.
Custody evaluator language and potential prejudice	Language additions improperly constrained by deleted qualifiers	Record insufficient to show prejudice from deletion	No reversible error; language properly addressed given record.
Attorneys’ fees on appeal	Fees should be awarded given positions	No current financial information; no fees awarded	No attorneys’ fees awarded on appeal; costs to Father on compliance.

Canyon Contracting Co. v. Tohono O’Odham Housing Authority, 172 Ariz. 389 (App. 1992) (material terms must be in writing; Rule 69 validates agreements)
Sharp v. Sharp, 179 Ariz. 205 (App. 1994) (evidentiary considerations when fairness is disputed; burden shifts)
National Bank of Arizona v. Thruston, 218 Ariz. 112 (App. 2008) (summary judgment burden on movant where genuine issues exist)
Am. Pepper Supply Co. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 208 Ariz. 307 (App. 2004) (burden of proof and standard of review in insurance-related disputes)