*1 37 15, Zaragoza In- (1965); v. Industrial Commission 406 P.2d 197 Belshe v. See also: Arizona, particularly Arizona, supra. dustrial supra. This is Commission In cases, case, opposed however, hearing cases in this in heart true officer’s injuries findings he volving or external indicate that failed to broken bones consider him, Continental all of the relevant of a more obvious nature. evidence before and Co. v. Industrial Commission we must therefore set the award aside. Casualty 565, Arizona, Ariz.App. 489 15 P.2d 1267 question, remaining The one that Commission Carson v. Industrial (1971); timely by respondent filing of his 372, Arizona, Ariz.App. 535 7 439 P.2d claim, properly we view to have been re us (1968). In such as the one before cases hearing solved officer. He found now, positive knowledge be had as cannot juris the Industrial Commission had true, causation, when this is and diction to consider the claim since was opinion expressed fact that one more filed year within one of the time when the positively than another does not make it manifest, injury though became not within give the trier of fact to it more of the time the initial accident weight than the other. Continental Cas (the of the pedestrian). death McGee v. ualty Ari Co. v. Industrial Commission of Copper Corporation, San Manuel 89 Ariz. zona, supra; Meeks v. Industrial Commis 244, 360 (1961); Mead Amer v. Arizona, 150, sion of Ariz.App. 7 Co., Smelting Ariz.App. ican Refining & 1 Phelps Dodge 928 Almanza v. 73, (1965). The evidence Corp., 57 Ariz. 112 P.2d 215 (1941). supports his conclusion. By holding we have not said award set aside. compensation may an WREN, JJ., STEVENS concur. solely upon possibilities

based specula testimony. Clearly tive our courts have

consistently held such is not law in

Arizona. Russell v. Industrial Commission Arizona, P.2d holding We are that in cases P.2d now, such as the one testimony before us Dorothy STANLEY, Appellant, Dean positive of a than degree less must be con sidered in combination with all evi other Larry STANLEY, Appellee. B. given dence and weight, what if any, 1 No. CA-CIV 2454. trier of fact deems Royal warranted. See Globe Company Insurance Industrial Appeals Arizona, Court of Arizona, Commission 20 Ariz.App. Division Department A. 970 (1973); Zaragoza P.2d In May 22, Arizona, dustrial Commission of 1975. 8 Ariz. Rehearing App. 236,445 Denied June 1975. July Review Granted hearing If the officer had reached considering same conclusion after all evidence, giving weight more to the Dubin, testimony of Dr. the award would weigh

stand. This Court does not the evi Commission;

dence before the liberty

officer is at to resolve conflicts

and draw warranted inferences. Arnott v. Arizona,

Industrial Commission of P.2d Waller Arizona,

Industrial Commission of

support provision original divorce May 25, judgment of pertinent portion of original decree states that pay Husband to theWife sum of per month for the of their $250 child, Larry minor Stanley, B. After Jr. an order to show cause on March 15, 1973, signed the court a modification of original judgment terminated which appellee Larry Stanley (Hus- B. band) to his son. The termination August date was to be 1972—the date years eighteen his son became old. The court found that to the 1972 amendment (effective 1972), 8-101 A.R.S. § changed age years years, twenty-one eighteen dispositive of the case. position is the

It Wife’s amend- ment, eight years after the enacted some operate original judgment, divorce cannot retrospectively prior judg- modify deprive right ment and to their son of his support past to child position the amend- It Husband’s age of ma- ment not established the years, in- persons jority for all emancipated twenty-one, also stead of but grants persons. The amendment example rights. it allows a broad new For qualified years to be person eighteen elector, adult treated as an state, political of- run for of this courts direc- fice, a board of be a member of marry tors, to hold various licenses Husband parental consent. without his son now argues that since further longer emancipated and no he is eighteen, payments. right to receive has the Flynn Kimerer Thinnes & Galbraith Crook, 296 P.2d 80 See Crook Derrick, Phoenix, Flynn, Clark L. error to opinion, In our it was John J. appellant. for Lar- on terminate birthday. Stanley, eighteenth ry B. Woodford, & Trew Woodford R. R. Jr.’s Phoenix, appellee. for rule of law It is well established support payments state that child in this OPINION retroactively. Mc be altered may not OGG, Presiding Judge. Hawkins, 367 P. Clanahan Superior (1961); Adair v. 2d 196 by appellant appeal This was instituted Baures challenge Dorothy (Wife) Dean Stanley Baures, Ariz.App. of a child trial court’s modification Badertscher, Badertscher v. Waldron, Waldron v. Ill.App.3d Ariz.App. 501, N.E.2d 167 Ap- an Illinois pellate squarely Court decision point. right The substantive of a child to In interpreting a sup- decree that ordered parental support away by cannot be taken port for each children, of the minor the Il- *3 a legislative amendment in the absence of linois Court held that the father must con- express an by. legislature intention the support tinue until his son reached 21 give such an appli amendment retroactive years age, although of legislature the had Strum, 22 Ill.App.3d cation. Strum v. subsequently majority reduced the' age of (1974); 317 N.E.2d 59 Baker v. years. to 18 In that case the court cited Wash.2d 498 P.2d 315 Vicino Kentucky cases from prop- which involved Vicino, Conn.Sup. 49, 298 A.2d 241 erty agreements settlement similar to the (1972). A.R.S. 1-244 reads: § agreement in Ruhsam. See Kirchner v. (Ky.1971), 299; Kirchner 465 S.W.2d Col- express- “No statute is retroactive unless Collins, lins v. (Ky.1967), 418 S.W.2d ly declared therein.” reasoning In Kentucky that “property the It is the established law of this state agreement” settlement cases such as Ruhs- retrospective application legislative en- persuasive am were in a court- actments must be avoided unless there is a support ordered (such case as the clearly expressed contrary. intention to the issue), case at the court stated: Headley Headley, 101 Ariz. 419 P. “Although all of these cases de- involved 2d (1966); Ferguson Superior resulting crees negotiated settle- 76 Ariz. ments and were principle decided on the nothing We find in the 1972amendment to that the intention parties governs, of the expressly 8-101 A.R.S. declares the § we something closely believe akin to that age majority new shall have retroactive principle applicable in the instant case. .application. appellant pointed brief, As the out his dealing The Arizona case law with our long it has been a rule of construction question Ruhsam, In limited. Ruhsam v. determining meaning judgments the the Ar- or decrees that one must examine the izona interpreted post- as it situation existed at the rendition of nuptial agreement part that was of a di- judgment.” the agreed vorce decree wherein the husband support emancipated by impression, each child until As a matter of first we be- majority. The court application held that the husband lieve retroactive “major- provide obligated ity” was seriously amendment would affect nu- eighteen year emancipation old child until merous individuals and families in this twenty-one years court age. dependent upon state who reasoned that the contract was entered into orders. The vast de- of divorce “majority” legally past when was attained at crees of decade involve parties twenty-one and that the must have orders similar case order in this property agree- so intended. The court further held rather than the settlement support obligation incorporated judgment such a not enforce- ment was into the as by contempt parent has seen in able once the child the Ruhsam case. No who Thomp- has Savage family reached raised a in recent times will See son, more Ariz.App. contest fact that children become per- Cordova, expensive Ariz.App. they grow older. Those Cordova v. reasoning age group to twen- (1974). Although the sons case, support if ty-one frequently need additional bearing has some Ruhsam squarely training college or education dealing advanced we have no Arizona cases contemplated. with the facts of this case. the 18 any sufficient both the mother and it is difficult articulate

While manner, dealing may with the be some form of we are forced seek succinct taxpayers of concepts separation public support financed fundamental broad escapes finality powers, process working this state while father due responsibility. At order judgments. the time the case, parties and entered in this di- parties The trial court and all to a majority to the court understood date vorce action heard after the effective reasonable that twenty-one. It age majority the new can take this at the time the court that into account took appro- age change into and make account divided, de- custody property contracts, priate ed- trusts for the establish support fixed. the amount of termined adequate ucation of the children or make property, provisions custo- the child The division of divorce decree. *4 alimony provisions, rights, visitation dy legis no that the We have doubt in support all interrelated child are and power change age the of lature has the to process in decision-making the any rational However, majority. do not the we believe Any legislation new divorce action. modify Legislature Arizona intended to age majority will not changing the of prior the divorce decrees nor do we believe provision, many in support but the affect modify Legislature authority has the to change basis for the trial it will the cases prior is age change divorce decrees. If the provi- numerous other judge’s decision on en interpreted modify divorce decrees in decree. sions the 13, 1972, prior we will August tered majority” apply age the “new of To effectively effect such a retroactive give 13, August prior to decrees entered divorce prior legislation modify the decrees and 1972, permit an across the in would effect parties or notice to the without a prior judgments. board modification of involved. concept judicial the solid This would erode above, the order For the reasons stated binding until judgments are valid and support as set terminating the of a good after notice and modified for cause judgment of March in modified forth the parties hearing to the involved. 15, the 1973, of is and the decision vacated by Nothing We believe statement made trial reversed. contained the court is re- in Washington the Baker be construed in this decision shall expresses supra, legal the trial a sound inherent of stricting the pertain- concept. modify the new orders stating after or amend court to retroactively material majority of not be when a age support would to child ing and applied, change has occurred stated: in circumstances the need based such modification “Further, pow- legislature the is without parent to ability of the child and the the aside, annul, or lia- change er to set the pay. solely bility upon judgment affecting a rights private parties by the en- DONOFRIO, J., concurs. general a actment of law.” this will ramifications of decision ' FROEB, (dissenting): Judge consequences. far-reaching have social view in their from I differ award- Take the case a mother who was altered duties rights and of the nature a If custody ed child who is now 18. reducing age Legislature by the totally may she unable work she twenty-one to majority from support from dependent upon enacted Legislature ter- When prior If divorce decree. mi- all legal status change it altered the for minated, training further education and attain or would who attained had nors youth may stop. Unless also and eighteen from age of future the self- suddenly becomes in Arizona not after the effective date of child laws and legislation any agreement parties. neither reason of the act. The retro- Ruhsam, operation. Thus Ruhsam v. Ariz. spective prospective nor in its upon its It affected effective modified 110 minors application has (1974) no date. here, since in that case there had been con- held, The Arizona has Supreme Court “ arrangements parents tractual between the beyond . . . the rule is settled concerning support for minor child. majority minority doubt that or status agreement pivot- The existence of the right, rather than a fixed or vested in that al decision. legislature power that the has full to fix jurisdiction majority.” continuing change Valley The court has Glover, modify National Bank Phoenix orders has en- 538, 558, for of a tered the benefit minor child. right There are no in future Thus there rights vested is no vested to continued support payments. Jungjohann Jungjo monetary a certain amount hann, 213 Kan. where circumstances shown to have Shoaf, changed. brought the change Shoaf N.C. S.E.2d Likewise Similarly, there are no Legislature reducing vested about property rights privileges twenty-one personal age majority eigh- *5 during a minority category, only attach status. Rice v. in the teen is the same Rice, by brought Kan. latter instance about changes generally legis- through the law reasoning majority opinion The change lative rather than enactment a minority applies rights theory a vested by parties in wrought an individual vested, if rights status. But these at there neither case. Can it be said that point they do ma- what vest? Under the legislation nor in the here intent person jority any view it would seem accomplish issue at which prior born would be day? courts undertake each age twenty-one entitled until Strum, per- and it would not limited to those The Vicino and Waldron majority support sons for whom there had been a court or- cases cited their support prior my they diverge der for to that date. view conclusion but legal principle. holding from sound The that the I note reduction in the the North Carolina majority by Legislature compre- Shoaf, supra, Shoaf considered legislation hensive which amended no few- here, precise seems to issue involved er than 90 sections of Arizona Revised persuasive. The me more court there Chapter Yet, Laws 1972. I Statutes. held: Leg- find two can instances where payment “A child falls islature, using express preserved language, alimony payment as an category same minority status for some members of by the subject becomes review age twenty-one the class until and these upon change of court conditions. support. are unrelated to the See unequivocally Legislature changed Chapter 88 and Laws of Sections date by fixing different conditions exceptions no these two intent 1972. With liability upon which legislation can be found some at 303. terminated.” S.E.2d children adults minor would become wait until eighteen while would others stated, affirm I would For the reasons twenty-one. reaching terminating the of the trial court the order rights appellee’s obligation at issue in this when duties virtue are those which arise minor child reached case