1.  Child Support: Arizona Court of Appeals Division 1

 

East v. Matthews, 222 Ariz. 99, 213 P.3d 248 (Division One, June 25, 2009)

 

Does Section 8 of the Arizona Child Support Guidelines, which permits
a court to increase the amount of child support if the parties’ combined
adjusted gross income exceeds $20,000 per month after taking into
account factors including “the standard of living the children would have
enjoyed if the parents and children were living together,” apply in paternity
actions in which the parents never lived together?

 

Engel v. Landman, 221 Ariz. 504, 212 P.3d 842, 555 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 4 (Division One, April 30, 2009)

 

A. Was the imputation of income and daycare expenses to the unemployed parent appropriate in calculating child support in the circumstances of this case?

B. Did the trial court use an appropriate method to calculate income from stock options in its calculation of income of one of the parents?

 

2. Custody: Arizona Court of Appeals Division 1

 

Reid v Reid, 222 Ariz. 204, 213 P.3d 353 (Division One, July 28, 2009)

 

A. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in allowing an expert witness to testify, even though the witness was first disclosed eight days prior to trial?

B. Pursuant to A.R.S. §25-403(B), did the trial court fail to adequately set forth its findings regarding all of the relevant factors listed in Section 25-403(A) and why the court’s decision is in the best interests of the children?

C. Did the Father waive his right to raise the issue regarding the failure of the court to make findings pursuant to A.R.S. §25-403(A) and (B) because he failed to raise it with the lower court?

 

Hurd v. Hurd, 222 Ariz. 246, 213 P.3d 683 (Division One, July 23, 2009)

 

Whether the Court abused its discretion by awarding Mother sole legal custody without making detailed findings of fact as required by A.R.S. section 25-403(B), and whether the Court additional abused its discretion in allowing the Mother to relocate out of state.

 

3.  Spousal Maintenance: Arizona Court of Appeals Division 1

 

Kline v. Kline, 221 Ariz. 564, 212 P.3d 902 (Division One, May 21, 2009).

 

Whether an award of spousal maintenance by default judgment is valid under Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 44(G) [the family law default decree rule] when the specific demand for maintenance was first contained in an amended pleading that was never served.

 

for more information on arizona case law issues or arizona general attorney see www.phoenixarizonalaw.com

Share →

One Response to Family Law Case Update – September 2009 – From Arizona Court of Appeals Division 1

  1. Ahmed says:

    He divorced you by proxy or under abanaddonadment. If you were svreed with papers and never signed them, you had 30 days from that point to subadmit a foradmal reply or the divorce goes through withadout you. If you abanaddoned him all he had to do was post ads about the divorce in newspapers…if you neglected to answer once again he’s entiadtled to the divorce. Just because you didn’t want to give it to him doesn’t mean the courts won’t allow him to divorce you. You have no legal rights to anyadthing since you did not paradticadiadpate in any of the proceedings.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *