Arizona's Premier
                Alimony/Spousal Maintenance Attorneys

Your Subtitle text
Arizona Cases

Guiterrez vs. Guiterrez (09/15/1998)

Mr. Guiterrez, the husband in this divorce case, appeals three of the trial court's decisions: (1) That he wasted community assets, (2) that Mrs. Guiterrez was entitled to lifetime spousal maintenance, and (3) the order that he pay his wife's attorney fees. The Arizona Court of Appeals, often citing to testimony in the trial court, concluded that Mr. Guiterrez had wasted community assets. Likewise, the Court of Appeals decided against Mr. Guiterrez on the spousal maintenance issue, concluding that Mrs. Guiterrez was working at her highest earning potential, that the marriage was of sufficient duration to merit a permanent award and that, should circumstances change, Mr. Guiterrez was entitled to seek a modification of the original spousal maintenance award. Finally, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision on attorney's fees, finding that Mrs. Guiterrez was the party least able to pay, a consideration allowed under Arizona Revised Statute §25-324, and that the trial court properly considered a settlement offer as it related to the reasonableness of Mr. Guiterrez' position, another factor allowed under the same Arizona statute. Please note as you read the case that Mr. Guiterrez made several mistakes/omissions at trial and apparently immediately after that made his case somewhat weaker on appeal.

Hughes vs. Hughes (07/20/1993)
The Arizona Court of Appeals shows its disappointment with the trial court's decision to award permanent spousal maintenance after a seven-year marriage. In this case, the Court of Appeals found no reasoning present in the trial court's decision that would have contradicted the normal presumption and public policy that a spouse receiving spousal maintenance should make some effort toward becoming independent. The case was remanded for proceedings consistent with the Arizona Court of Appeals' decision.

Kelsey vs. Kelsey (01/09/1996)
The two big issues at stake in this appeal before the Arizona Supreme Court involved business valuation and spousal maintenance. The Supreme Court disagreed with the trial court's acceptance of the wife's expert's evaluation and business characterization. In addition, the Arizona Supreme Court found the trial court's reasoning on spousal maintenance flawed.

Mr. Rainwater, the husband in this Arizona family law case, appealed the trial court's decision that awarded his wife indefinite spousal maintenance (formerly commonly referred to as alimony). The court rejected Mr. Rainwater's argument that spousal maintenance was really meant to be rehabilitative or transitional in nature, not a permanent lifetime annuity (my words, not Mr. Rainwater's or the court's). The court, however, felt that Mr. Rainwater's argument gives inadequate weight to the standard of living established during the marriage and to Mrs. Rainwater's contribution to Mr. Rainwater's earning ability, both factors included in Arizona's spousal maintenance statute.

Schroeder vs. Schroeder (07/18/1989)

The Arizona Supreme Court evaluated the modifiability of a spousal maintenance (alimony) order when the Arizona family Court Order is for a set duration but is silent as to modifiability. The Arizona Supreme Court determined that when an Arizona spousal maintenance order is silent as to modifiability, the spousal maintenance order may be modified under Arizona law upon a showing of significant and substantial change of circumstances.

Van Dyke vs. Steinle (03/28/1995)
The Arizona Family Court stopped husband's spousal maintenance (alimony) obligation based on husband's argument that wife's cohabitation was basically just like marriage and that, since the spousal maintenance order required that the spousal maintenance would cease upon her remarriage, wife was not entitled to further spousal maintenance. The Arizona Family Court agreed and stopped the spousal maintenance. Wife appealed and the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, agreed with wife that the cohabitation, in and of itself, did not meet the requirements for stopping the spousal maintenance. The Court of Appeals did, however, remand the case back to the trial court, for a determination as to whether husband's evidence would allow a partial downward modification of husband's spousal maintenance obligation.

The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two, discusses the spousal maintenance (alimony) decision the Arizona Family Court handed down and overturns the family court. The appellate case centers around two parties that, upon divorce, settled on a spousal maintenance agreement that provided the wife with seven years of spousal maintenance. The original marital settlement contained a clause that the spousal maintenance would automatically terminate upon either party's death. Five years later, the wife wanted to modify the spousal maintenance award and the parties agreed to six years of spousal maintenance from that point on, such amount to be non-modifiable as to amount and duration. When wife died three years later, the trustee of her estate argued that the new agreement did not include the termination upon death provision and, therefore, husband must pay to the estate the remaining years of his spousal maintenance obligation. The Arizona trial court agreed, but the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the language of the relevant Arizona statute, A.R.S. §25-327(B), applied and that husband was not further obligated.

Zale vs. Zale (01/12/1999)
Mrs. Zale appealed from a finding that her spousal maintenance award was for a fixed term. The Arizona Supreme Court, finding that the "parol evidence rule" does not apply to judgments, agreed with Mrs. Zale and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its ruling.

Website Builder