Vanden Bosch v. Vanden Bosch
1 CA-CV 16-0484-FC
Ariz. Ct. App.Nov 30, 2017Background
- Mother and Father divorced in Tennessee (2011); custody judgment registered in Arizona (2012) for their three minor children.
- After Father's retirement, parties litigated modifications to custody, parenting time, and child support; evidentiary hearing held April 2016.
- Superior court found a substantial change of circumstances, concluded Mother failed to rebut the presumptions under A.R.S. § 25-403.04, ordered inpatient alcohol treatment, FACT Court monitoring (later discontinued), and temporarily awarded Father sole legal decision-making until compliance.
- Court adopted a staged Parenting Plan increasing Mother's time as she complied; that plan later became moot because the superior court resumed direct management and ended FACT Court involvement.
- Superior court awarded Father 75% of his attorneys’ fees and costs incurred after February 2015 ($118,000) and entered a judgment requiring payment by Jan 15, 2017, with interest to accrue thereafter at 4.25%. Father’s motion for new trial was denied; both parties appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court could suspend accrual of interest on the attorneys’ fees judgment | Suspension of interest was improper; interest should run from entry of judgment | Court may exercise discretion to delay when interest begins to accrue | Court abused discretion by deferring interest; judgment modified to award interest at 4.25% from judgment date (Sept 7, 2016) |
| Legality of Parenting Plan and FACT Court oversight | Parenting Plan stages and FACT Court oversight improperly abdicated court’s duty and were not in children’s best interests | FACT Court oversight and staged plan were appropriate interim measures tied to treatment compliance | Moot — superior court later ended FACT Court involvement and assumed direct management; appellate court declined to address merits |
| Whether superior court abused discretion in awarding fees based on Mother’s conduct | (N/A on appeal) | Fees award excessive and included fees unrelated to specific unreasonable positions; court wrongly relied on the set-aside stipulation | No abuse of discretion; court considered finances and reasonableness and substantial evidence supported awarding 75% of fees after Feb 2015 |
| Award of attorneys’ fees on appeal | Father sought appellate fees under A.R.S. § 25-324 and ARCAP 21 | Mother sought appellate fees similarly | Court declined to award attorneys’ fees to either party on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- McCune v. McCune, 120 Ariz. 402 (App. 1978) (awarding post-decree interest to avoid forcing an interest-free loan)
- Koelsch v. Koelsch, 148 Ariz. 176 (1986) (applying post-judgment interest to marital property awards)
- Clark v. Clark, 239 Ariz. 281 (App. 2016) (standard: abuse of discretion review for attorneys’ fees awards under § 25-324)
- In re Marriage of Williams, 219 Ariz. 546 (App. 2008) (abuse of discretion defined; questions of law reviewed de novo)
- Cuellar v. Vettorel, 235 Ariz. 399 (App. 2014) (recognizing attorneys’ fee awards can be part of a judgment for purposes of interest accrual)