Uthe v. Uthe
1 CA-CV 16-0025-FC
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Dec 1, 2016Background
- Ronald (Father) and Mindy Uthe (Mother) divorced after a 2004–2014 marriage with two minor children; Father petitioned for dissolution in Nov. 2014.
- Father had previously run a high‑income business, was later convicted of a federal firearms felony, lost the business, and spent time in prison.
- Temporary orders had required Mother to pay some fees and child support; Father later alleged she failed to comply and sought contempt and enforcement of attorneys’ fees.
- At an October 2015 evidentiary hearing the court received testimony and exhibits; a November 2015 Decree awarded Mother final legal decision‑making, primary residential custody, set parenting time for Father, ordered $200/month child support, denied spousal maintenance to Father, divided community property and debts equally, and awarded Mother attorneys’ fees.
- Father appealed but failed to provide the trial transcript and his appellate brief did not meet ARCAP requirements; Mother did not file an answering brief.
- The Decree omitted a specific allocation for a 401(k) (or pension) account held in Mother’s name that apparently includes community interest; the court remanded solely to specify the nature of the account and how it should be divided.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Uthe) | Defendant's Argument (Mindy) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial‑record sufficiency / appellate briefing | Decree unsupported by evidence; errors in factual findings and credibility findings | Mother did not file brief; trial record presumed to support Decree | Appeal foreclosed by failure to provide transcript; missing record presumed to support trial court; no reversible error shown |
| Parenting time allocation | Father argued 50/50 custody was reasonable; disagreed with credibility findings | Decree asserted best interests favored Mother; enumerated conditions for expanding Father’s time | Court reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed parenting time; set conditions for future modification |
| Child support amount | Father argued $200/mo made no sense given disability/unemployability | Court used Father’s reported actual income on worksheet (including disability income) and did not impute income | Child support award affirmed as within court’s discretion |
| Spousal maintenance denial | Father sought maintenance; asserted court misapplied legal standards | Court found Father responsible for financial problems and that he could provide for himself | Denial affirmed as not an abuse of discretion |
| Temporary orders / attorneys’ fees | Father sought enforcement of temporary order requiring Mother pay his fees; contested award of fees to Mother | Court treated temporary orders as modifiable and found enforcement unfair; awarded fees after considering finances and reasonableness of positions | Court’s refusal to enforce temporary fee order and award of fees to Mother affirmed |
| Division of retirement account (401(k)/pension) | Father contends Decree left splitting of Mother’s 401(k)/pension unresolved | Mother did not respond on appeal | Remand required: superior court must determine account type and specify division of community interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Cullison v. City of Peoria, 120 Ariz. 165 (1978) (where record is incomplete on appeal, missing portions are presumed to support trial court)
- Baker v. Baker, 183 Ariz. 70 (App. 1995) (appellate presumptions where record is incomplete)
- Thompson v. Thompson, 217 Ariz. 524 (App. 2008) (failure to file answering brief may be treated as confession of error but not in child best‑interest cases)
- Hurd v. Hurd, 223 Ariz. 48 (App. 2009) (appellate court will not reweigh evidence)
- Owen v. Blackhawk, 206 Ariz. 418 (App. 2003) (parenting time reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- McNutt v. McNutt, 203 Ariz. 28 (App. 2002) (child support reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, 193 Ariz. 343 (App. 1998) (spousal maintenance standard; abuse of discretion review)
- Magee v. Magee, 206 Ariz. 589 (App. 2004) (attorneys’ fees awarded after considering parties’ financial resources and reasonableness)
- Maximov v. Maximov, 220 Ariz. 299 (App. 2009) (temporary orders are modifiable and not necessarily permanent)
- Cullum v. Cullum, 215 Ariz. 352 (App. 2007) (appellate courts construe facts in light most favorable to affirming decree)