Title: Allison v. Ovens

State: arizona

Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court

Document:

102 Ariz. 520 (1967) 433 P.2d 968 Chyrl Merth (Ovens) ALLISON, Appellant, v. James M. OVENS, Jr., Appellee. No. 8941-PR. Supreme Court of Arizona. In Banc. November 22, 1967. Rehearing Denied January 9, 1968. *521 John J. Dickinson, Phoenix, for appellant. Charles M. Brewer, Jerry H. Glenn, Phoenix, for appellee. JOHN P. COLLINS, Judge, Superior Court. This matter is before us by a petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals reported in 4 Ariz. App. 496, 421 P.2d 929. We granted the petition for the limited purpose of reviewing the jurisdiction of the trial court to make temporary custody awards of children pending appeal. The trial court entered judgment modifying a previous decree of divorce relating to the custody of three minor children. The three children were awarded to the father, Dr. James M. Ovens, Jr., and the mother, Chyrl Merth (Ovens) Allison, appealed as to the change of custody relating to two only of the three children. This case was before us previously (Allison v. Chatwin, 99 Ariz. 99, 407 P.2d 69) pending the appeal thereof in the Court of Appeals. There, the mother of said children sought a review of the decision of the trial court, wherein it fixed a supersedeas bond in the amount of $50,000, which amount was by this court held to be unreasonable and reduced to $4,000. The trial court, anticipating the appellant might appeal the decision changing custody of the three children, held: This holding of the court is contrary to the previous decisions of this court. Apparently the trial court misinterpreted our previous decisions on this subject, as was suggested by petitioner in the request for review. We were of the opinion that this court had made the rules clear in regard to custody of children on appeal, commencing with Gotthelf v. Fickett, 37 Ariz. 322, 294 P. 837, on rehearing 37 Ariz. 413, 294 P. 837, and the most recent of which was, of course, Allison v. Chatwin, supra. Appropos the situation in granting this review was the following statement made on rehearing of the Gotthelf case, supra: In our recent decision on Hackin v. Superior Court, 102 Ariz. 93, 425 P.2d 420, we had an opportunity to review Allison v. *522 Chatwin, supra, and stated there in this regard as follows: Since, unlike Hackin, supra, the instant case does involve the custody of children, it would be appropriate to set out here the balance of the paragraph appearing in Allison v. Chatwin, supra, which was omitted in the Hackin opinion. It is as follows: It seems patently clear to us that insofar as supersedeas is concerned, there is no reason for a distinction between two appeals, the one involving an ordinary change of custody of minor children (Bailey v. Superior Court, 97 Ariz. 293, 399 P.2d 907), and the other case involving a civil appeal not involving change of custody (Hackin v. Superior Court, supra). The precise question relating to supersedeas, which is presented to us on this review, is whether there is a logical reason for a distinction between two appeals, the one involving an ordinary change of custody of minor children (Bailey v. Superior Court, supra), and the other case being an appeal involving specific findings and order of the trial court relating to the necessity of a temporary change of custody, pending any appeal, in order to safeguard the safety, welfare, and care of the minor children (Allison v. Chatwin, supra). Thus, in the instant case, the trial judge made express findings and an order relating to such temporary custody pending appeal. This court took note of such findings and order in our opinion in Allison v. Chatwin, supra, as follows: Notwithstanding the aforesaid specific findings by the trial court, in Allison v. Chatwin, supra, we stated: If the rule were otherwise in the instant case, it would necessarily mean that the trial court, by its own act, could enlarge its jurisdiction into a field where it has no jurisdiction, except to do acts in furtherance of the appeal. This was never contemplated *523 by the legislature, nor by this court. In Gotthelf v. Fickett, supra, this court reaffirmed its prior holdings that: See also Sam v. State, 33 Ariz. 421, 265 P. 622, and Navajo Realty Co. v. County National Bank & Trust Co., 31 Ariz. 128, 250 P. 885. After reiterating the foregoing rule in Gotthelf, supra, this court reasoned logically that there is a distinct difference in the jurisdiction of a trial court relating to "acts in furtherance of an appeal" in an appeal not involving a supersedeas bond, as opposed to an appeal such as here, where, but for the posting of a supersedeas bond, the two cases might otherwise be the same. In arriving at this distinction this court held (in Gotthelf v. Fickett, supra): That the facts of the instant case are squarely within Gotthelf, supra, there can be no doubt. Therefore, for a change to be made in the custody of the children pending appeals it would have to be through juvenile proceedings or by application to this court for some proper order. This is the procedure this court has held to be proper and in the best interests of children during appeal. The view of this court on the purpose and effect of supersedeas, as set out above, has been the law of this state since Gotthelf, supra, and as such was and is controlling in all stages of proceedings of the instant case. Furthermore, this court having previously had this case before it on certiorari pending the appeal of the case in the Court of Appeals, our decision there became, in addition, the express law *524 of the case. This being so, that opinion of this court should have been followed in all applicable respects in said appeal proceedings. That part of the Court of Appeals decision in regard to the order for temporary custody is vacated. We hold the lower court was without jurisdiction to order temporary custody of the children pending appeal. In all other respects the judgment of the lower court is affirmed. McFARLAND, V.C.J., UDALL and LOCKWOOD, JJ., and LLOYD C. HELM, Judge Superior Court, concur.