Vincent v. Shanovich, 1 CA-CV 16-0431-FC

Husband and Wife divorced in 2002; the decree awarded Wife one-half of Husband’s retirement accrued as of the petition filing date and required a QDRO implementing that provision.
In 2004 the parties stipulated to a QDRO, which the court entered; neither party appealed the QDRO at that time.
In December 2015 Husband moved to set aside the QDRO, alleging a clerical error that would entitle Wife to half of his entire pension at retirement rather than only the amount accrued by the petition filing date; he also argued the QDRO exceeded statutory authority.
Wife opposed the motion as untimely and moved for attorneys’ fees and sanctions; the superior court denied Husband’s motion to set aside and awarded Wife $6,210 in attorneys’ fees under A.R.S. § 25-324.
Husband appealed both the denial of his motion to set aside the QDRO and the attorneys’ fees award.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction over appeal of order denying motion to set aside QDRO	Wife: appeal too late; issues could only be raised by timely appeal from QDRO	Husband: order denying motion is final/appealable under A.R.S. § 12-2101	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; order was not a "special order" raising different issues from a direct appeal of the QDRO
Whether motion to set aside alleged clerical error is a merits challenge	Husband: QDRO contains clerical error creating broader award than decree	Wife: motion effectively attacks merits and could have been appealed in 2004	Court treated motion as a merits attack that should have been raised on direct appeal; not allowed as delayed appeal
Award of attorneys’ fees under A.R.S. § 25-324	Wife: entitled to fees; Husband acted unreasonably	Husband: court failed to consider statutory requirement to assess parties’ financial resources	Fees award vacated because court did not consider financial resources as required by statute
Request for appellate fees and sanctions	Both parties sought fees and sanctions on appeal	N/A	Denied: no current evidence of finances; court declines to impose sanctions

In re Marriage of Dorman, 198 Ariz. 298 (App. 2000) (order after judgment qualifies as special only if it raises issues different from those on direct appeal)
Arvizu v. Fernandez, 183 Ariz. 224 (App. 1995) (same principle preventing delayed appeals by treating postjudgment orders as special only when they present distinct issues)
Sotomayor v. Sotomayor-Muñoz, 239 Ariz. 288 (App. 2016) (postjudgment motion challenging merits of judgment is not an appealable special order and cannot be used to delay a direct appeal)