Whalen v. Whalen, 1 CA-CV 24-0580-FC

Husband (Matthew Whalen) and Wife (Karla Whalen) married in 2008; both suffered from serious health conditions, Husband with Parkinson’s and Wife with multiple sclerosis.
In 2022, Husband petitioned for divorce in Arizona; Wife, residing in Florida, did not respond, believing Arizona lacked jurisdiction based on flawed legal advice.
A default decree entered, requiring Wife to pay Husband $3,100/month in spousal maintenance for 13 years and allocating significant debt to Wife (~$90,000) and Husband ($47,000).
Wife’s subsequent motion to set aside the decree (arguing the decree was void, harsh, and inequitable due to excusable neglect) was summarily denied and not appealed.
Husband petitioned to enforce the spousal maintenance; Wife soon petitioned to modify it, claiming changed circumstances regarding her health and finances.
The superior court granted modification, reducing payments to $750/month; Husband appealed, and Wife failed to file an answering brief on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there a substantial change in circumstances sufficient to modify spousal maintenance?	Wife did not meet her burden; any new financial evidence was either foreseeable or known at the time of the original decree.	Wife claimed worsened health and increased expenses since the decree justified modification.	Court found the issue debatable and reversed; Wife confessed error by not responding.
Can inaccurate or incomplete information in the original default decree justify modification?	Only a substantial and continuing change in economic circumstances supports modification.	Inaccurate information in the original proceedings warrants modification.	The court agreed with Husband: inaccurate info alone does not justify modification absent true changed circumstances.

Schroeder v. Schroeder, 161 Ariz. 316 (Ariz. 1989) (sets standard for reviewing spousal maintenance modifications)
Smith v. Mangum, 155 Ariz. 448 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987) (modification requires a substantial change in economic circumstances)
Marquez v. Marquez, 132 Ariz. 593 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982) (foreseeable changes cannot support modification)
Marriage of Rowe, 117 Ariz. 474 (Ariz. 1978) (claim preclusion in the context of spousal maintenance modification)
Merrill v. Wheeler, 17 Ariz. 348 (Ariz. 1915) (defines "debatable issues" for confession of error on appeal)
Campbell v. Malik, 9 Ariz. App. 562 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1969) (debatable legal issues as grounds for confession of error)
Honsey v. Honsey, 126 Ariz. 336 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980) (confession of error not required if no error below)
Nelson v. Nelson, 91 Ariz. 215 (Ariz. 1962) (appellee's failure to file brief as confession of error)
Mower v. Street, 79 Ariz. 282 (Ariz. 1955) (appellee's brief requirements and confession of error)