Opinion
1 CA-CV 21-0261 FC
04-28-2022
In re the Matter of: HOLLY ARJONA, Petitioner/Appellant, v. JORGE ARJONA, Respondent/Appellee.
Jardine, Baker, Hickman & Houston, PLLC, Phoenix By Amy M. Hoffman Co-Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant. Burt Feldman & Grenier PLC, Scottsdale By Sandra Burt, Ashley Ponzo Co-Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant. Schneider & Onofry PC, Phoenix By Maria C. Lomeli, Dee R. Giles Counsel for Respondent/Appellee.
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. FC2016-093966 The Honorable John L. Blanchard, Judge.
Jardine, Baker, Hickman & Houston, PLLC, Phoenix By Amy M. Hoffman Co-Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant.
Burt Feldman & Grenier PLC, Scottsdale By Sandra Burt, Ashley Ponzo Co-Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant.
Schneider & Onofry PC, Phoenix By Maria C. Lomeli, Dee R. Giles Counsel for Respondent/Appellee.
Judge Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig and Judge Brian Y. Furuya joined.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
PERKINS, JUDGE.
¶1 Holly Arjona ("Mother") appeals the denial of her post-decree petition and the amount of her attorneys' fees award. For the following reasons, we affirm the superior court's attorneys' fees award but dismiss Mother's other claims.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶2 Mother and Jorge Arjona ("Father") have four children. The parties' 2017 consent decree established joint legal decision-making authority and equal parenting time. Mother petitioned to modify the decree two years later and sought sole legal decision-making authority.
¶3 After an evidentiary hearing, the superior court found the "parties' profound deterioration in communication and cooperation" warranted modification of the parties' joint legal decision-making authority. On January 13, 2021, the court awarded Father tiebreaking authority for medical issues but otherwise continued joint legal decisionmaking authority. The court awarded Mother a portion of her attorneys' fees and costs, finding that despite her greater financial resources, Father acted unreasonably.
¶4 Rather than appeal, and before the superior court set an amount for the attorneys' fees award, Mother moved to alter or amend the legal decision-making ruling under Rule 83. On March 15, 2021, the court fully resolved Mother's petition in a special order and awarded her $5,000 of the $86,398.06 in attorneys' fees and costs she requested. Mother filed a timely notice of appeal from the attorneys' fees portion of that ruling on April 14, 2021, but she did not include the legal decision-making ruling in her notice. The court denied Mother's Rule 83 motion on April 22, 2021. On May 11, 2021, Mother amended her notice of appeal to include that ruling.
¶5 In December 2021, we asked the parties to be prepared to discuss at oral argument the impact Yee v. Yee, 251 Ariz. 71 (App. 2021), has on our jurisdiction to hear Mother's claims. Father then moved to dismiss all but Mother's attorneys' fees award claim.
DISCUSSION
I. Jurisdiction
¶6 Our jurisdiction is limited and defined by the legislature. Brumett v. MGA Home Healthcare, L.L.C., 240 Ariz. 420, 426, ¶ 4 (App. 2016). We have an independent duty to review and ensure that we have jurisdiction and must dismiss an appeal when we lack jurisdiction. See id. at 425, ¶ 3. The superior court's resolution of a post-decree motion is a special order made after final judgment under A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(2) and is immediately appealable. See Yee, 251 Ariz. at 75-76, ¶¶ 12-14.
¶7 Mother filed a Rule 83 motion to alter or amend the superior court's special order and argues it tolled her time to appeal the court's ruling on legal decision-making authority. But a Rule 83 motion was improper here as "Rule 83 pertains to final judgments, not special orders; it affords no mechanism for parties to seek alterations or amendments to special orders." See Blos v. Blos, 1 CA-CV 21-0639, 2022 WL 969571, at *2, ¶ 11 (Ariz. App. Mar. 31, 2022) (citing Yee, 251 Ariz. at 75, ¶ 10). The March 15, 2021 special order fully resolved Mother's petition and thus served as the proper vehicle to appeal the superior court's January 13, 2021 ruling modifying the parties' legal decision-making authority. See Ghadimi v. Soraya, 230 Ariz. 621, 623-24, ¶¶ 13-14 (App. 2012) (a claim for attorneys' fees is not resolved until the amount is decided). Mother's April 14, 2021 notice of appeal was timely only for the attorneys' fees award. We therefore grant Father's motion to dismiss all but Mother's attorneys' fees claim.
II. Attorneys' Fees
¶8 We review the superior court's ruling on a request for attorneys' fees under A.R.S. § 25-324 for an abuse of discretion. Myrick v. Maloney, 235 Ariz. 491, 494, ¶ 6 (App. 2014).
¶9 The superior court cited many examples of Father's unreasonable behavior. But it also found Mother has considerably more financial resources than Father. The record supports this finding. The court acted within its discretion to reduce Mother's fees award based on the parties' financial disparity, despite Father's unreasonable conduct. It is the superior court's duty to balance these considerations, and we will not reweigh them on appeal. See Castro v. Ballesteros-Suarez, 222 Ariz. 48, 51-52, ¶ 11 (App. 2009). We affirm the attorneys' fees award.
¶10 Both parties request attorneys' fees on appeal. Although neither party took unreasonable positions on appeal, because of Mother's superior financial resources we award Father his reasonable attorneys' fees and costs upon compliance with ARCAP 21.
CONCLUSION
¶11 We affirm the superior court's attorneys' fees award but dismiss the remainder of Mother's claims.