NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

In re the Matter of:

SARRAH SALUS, Petitioner/Appellee,

v.

ERNESTO MATA, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CV 22-0258 FC

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. FC2019-053504

The Honorable John R. Doody, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Becker Zarling & Smith Law, Avondale

By Gina M. Becker-Zarling

Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee

Rose and Associates, PLLC, Chandler

By Timothy J. Rose

Counsel for Respondent/Appellant

FILED 6-1-2023
SALUS v. MATA

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge D. Steven Williams delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge Angela K. Paton joined.

W I L L I A M S, Judge:

¶1 Ernesto Mata (“Father”) appeals three separate awards of 

attorney’s fees and costs to Sarrah Salus (“Mother”). For reasons that 

follow, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The First Award

¶2 Mother and Father never married but have one child in 

common, born in 2018. In 2019, Mother petitioned the superior court to 

establish paternity and issue legal decision-making, parenting time, and 

child support orders. About a year later, before the court had issued any 

order on Mother’s petition, Father moved for emergency temporary orders, 

alleging Mother had, among other things, “recklessly” placed the child in 

“physical harm,” including exposing the child to COVID-19 while traveling 

out-of-state for a family member’s funeral. The court held an evidentiary 

hearing on Father’s motion, largely denying it, and later held a trial on 

Mother’s petition. In December 2020, the court issued its final order on 

Mother’s petition. As part of its final order, the court denied both parties’ 

requests for attorney’s fees.

¶3 Within weeks, Mother moved the superior court to amend its

order, including its denial of Mother’s request for attorney’s fees, based 

upon newly discovered evidence related to Father’s emergency motion for 

temporary orders. Mother alleged that Father’s motion was made in “bad 

faith,” and that shortly after Father filed his motion, he traveled out-of-state

to visit his girlfriend—a nurse who actively worked with COVID-19

patients—and then exercised parenting time with the child immediately 

afterwards. Mother also alleged that Father manipulated and threatened his 

girlfriend to conceal this fact, as well as other instances of domestic 

violence, from the court.

¶4 The superior court held an evidentiary hearing on Mother’s 

motion to amend in early 2021. The court found that Father’s conduct had 
SALUS v. MATA

Decision of the Court

3

been “egregious”; that Father “[lied] to Mother and the Court”; that Father 

“emotionally manipulated” his girlfriend to conceal his domestic violence 

against her, including domestic violence in front of the child; and that 

Father violated a previous court order. The court stated it “never would 

have denied Mother’s original request for attorney’s fees had it been aware 

of [Father’s] conduct.” The court directed Mother to submit an affidavit for 

attorney’s fees for “all work performed on this case.” Mother complied, 

requesting $65,641.60 in attorney’s fees. Father objected. The court awarded

Mother $39,284.00 in attorney’s fees.

The Second Award

¶5 A few months later, Mother petitioned the court to enforce 

child support when Father failed to make support payments for three

months. She also requested attorney’s fees related to the newly filed 

petition. The parties reached an Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure 

(“ARFLP”) 69 agreement on the issue, and the court scheduled an 

enforcement hearing a few months later “to make sure that Father was 

performing his obligations under the Rule 69 agreement.” About a month

after the hearing, Mother filed an application for attorney’s fees and costs

requesting $1,840.00. The court granted Mother’s request, finding, in part,

“Father and his attorney asserted unreasonable positions at the review 

hearing.”

¶6 Mother submitted a prepared order for the court’s signature, 

which the court endorsed. Father moved for relief arguing that Mother’s 

request for attorney’s fees was untimely under ARFLP 78(e)(3) because it 

was filed more than fifteen days after the court issued its minute entry. The 

court denied Father relief.

The Third Award

¶7 In late 2021, Father petitioned the superior court to modify 

child support under the simplified process, alleging that there had been a 

substantial and continuing change of circumstances since the last child 

support order based upon his change in employment and reduction in 

income. Following an evidentiary hearing, the court denied Father’s 

petition, finding that no substantial and continuing change of 

circumstances had occurred, and that even viewing the evidence in a light 

most favorable to Father, his modified child support obligation would 

differ from his current obligation by less than 3%. The court granted Mother 

her attorney’s fees and costs over Father’s objection but awarded only 

$4,500.00 of the $5,112.00 Mother requested. In its order, the court stated 
SALUS v. MATA

Decision of the Court

4

“[t]his judgment is entered in the nature of child support and as such is 

enforceable by all legal remedies, including the court’s contempt power.”

¶8 Father timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under Article 6, 

Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1) and

-2101(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶9 Section 25-324(A) gives the superior court discretion to award 

attorney’s fees and costs after considering (1) “the financial resources of 

both parties” and (2) “the reasonableness of the positions each party has 

taken throughout the proceedings.” We review each of the court’s awards 

of attorney’s fees and costs for an abuse of discretion. Myrick v. Maloney, 235 

Ariz. 491, 494, ¶ 6 (App. 2014).

I. The First Award

¶10 Father contends that $39,384.00 was an unreasonable amount 

for the superior court to award Mother because Mother had only accrued 

$8,052.46 in attorney’s fees as of August 2020, but that amount increased to 

$65,641.60 eight months later, “an increase of 800%.” Father does not

explain why $39,384.00 was unreasonable, only that the percentage of the

increase in fees over several months was unreasonable. But on appeal, 

Father does not object to specific billing entries, identify any duplication or 

unreasonable billing practices, or raise other factual issues with the amount 

of fees billed. And the $8,052.46 of attorney’s fees Mother had accrued by 

August 2020 did not include attorney’s fees incurred for the trial on 

Mother’s petition, for subsequent investigation into Father’s deceptive 

behaviors connected to his motion for emergency temporary orders, for 

Mother’s motion to amend the court’s judgment, or for the evidentiary 

hearing held on Mother’s motion to amend. 

¶11 Father also claims that the superior court did “not rule on” his 

objection to Mother’s request. Though the court’s order awarding Mother 

$39,384.00 does not expressly state that the court considered Father’s 

written objection, the court clearly did as evinced by the court awarding 

$26,257.60 less than Mother requested.

¶12 Father further argues that the superior court erred because it 

failed to explain what made the award of $39,384.00 reasonable. But the 

court is not required to make specific factual or legal findings when 

awarding attorney’s fees under A.R.S. § 25-324. MacMillan v. Schwartz, 226 

Ariz. 584, 592, ¶ 39 (App. 2011). Regardless, the court stated it considered 
SALUS v. MATA

Decision of the Court

5

both parties’ financial resources and found that “Father’s financial 

resources are superior to those of Mother.” The court also identified several 

specific acts of dishonest behavior by Father, supra ¶ 4, which ultimately 

caused Mother to accrue more in attorney’s fees in uncovering Father’s 

“egregious” behavior and litigating over it. Father has shown no error.

II. The Second Award

¶13 Mother requested attorney’s fees in her petition to enforce 

child support. At the enforcement hearing, the superior court expressed its 

reluctance to award those fees but invited Mother to “[g]o ahead and file 

your [] motion, I guess, but I’m going to look at it real hard.” The court 

subsequently issued an unsigned minute entry on the child support issue 

but did not address attorney’s fees. Nearly a month later, Mother again 

petitioned for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting $1,840.00. The court 

granted Mother’s request based upon Father and his attorney’s conduct at 

the hearing, supra ¶ 5.

¶14 Father contends that Mother was obligated under ARFLP 78

to file her petition for attorney’s fees within fifteen days of the court’s 

minute entry.

¶15 ARFLP 78(e)(3) provides:

The determination of attorney fees, costs, and expenses must 

be included in the judgment or as otherwise ordered by the 

court. If a party asserts a claim for attorney fees, costs, and 

expenses under subpart (e)(1), and a judgment is entered 

under this rule that omits a ruling on the claim, the claim is 

deemed denied unless the party files a timely Rule 83 motion 

within 15 days after entry of the judgment.

¶16 The fifteen-day requirement for requesting attorney’s fees 

and costs under ARFLP 78(e)(3) applies specifically to Rule 78 judgments. 

Judgments include, inter alia, “decision[s] defining or modifying . . . child 

support.” ARFLP 78(a)(1). On the other hand, Rule 78 “decisions” include 

“a written order, ruling, or minute entry that adjudicates at least one claim 

or defense.” ARFLP 78(a)(2). The minute entry here looks more like a 

decision and less like a judgment. That distinction is worth noting because 

Rule 78’s fifteen-day requirement for Mother to request her attorney’s fees 

and costs expressly applies to “judgments” (with no mention of 

“decisions”). Regardless, the court never signed the minute entry, nor did 

the minute entry contain any Rule 78(b) or (c) finality language. See ARFLP 

78(g)(1) (“All judgments must be in writing and signed by a judge or court 
SALUS v. MATA

Decision of the Court

6

commissioner duly authorized to do so.”). The fifteen days did not begin to 

run upon the court’s issuance of the minute entry. Mother’s subsequent 

petition for attorney’s fees and costs was not untimely. On this record,

Father’s argument fails.

III. The Third Award

¶17 Father next argues that the superior court abused its 

discretion by awarding Mother attorney’s fees stemming from Father’s 

unsuccessful petition to modify child support.

¶18 Father filed his petition under the simplified procedure:

[A] parent . . . may request the court to modify a child support 

order if application of the guidelines results in an order that 

varies 15% or more from the existing amount. A fifteen 

percent variation in the amount of the order will be 

considered evidence of substantial and continuing change of 

circumstances.

. . .

The simplified procedure also may be used by [a] parent . . . 

to modify a child support order to assign or alter the 

responsibility to provide medical insurance for a child who is 

subject of a child support order. A modification of the medical

assignment or responsibility does not need to vary by 15% or 

more from the existing amount to use the simplified 

procedure.

See A.R.S. § 25-320 app. (2018) (“Guidelines”) § 24(B). The parties stipulated 

to using the Guidelines and child support calculator that existed at the time 

Father filed his petition.

¶19 The superior court found that Father failed to show a 

substantial and continuing change of circumstances between the initial 

child support order and his petition to modify. See A.R.S. §§ 25-327, -503, 

Guidelines § 24(A), (B). The court stated that under the simplified process, 

“Father had the burden to show that the application of the Guidelines 

results in an order that varies 15% or more from an existing amount.” And 

that “even after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Father, 

. . . Father’s modified child support obligation would differ from his current 

obligation by less than [3%].” Mother, as the prevailing party, requested her
SALUS v. MATA

Decision of the Court

7

attorney’s fees and costs. Over Father’s objection, the court awarded 

Mother $4,500.00.

¶20 Father contends it was error for the superior court to find no

substantial change in circumstances because his change of employment 

resulted in a loss of health insurance coverage for the child. See Guidelines 

§ 24(B) (“A modification of the medical assignment or responsibility does 

not need to vary by 15% or more from the existing amount to use the 

simplified procedure.”)

¶21 Though Father briefly mentioned a change in his health 

insurance at the evidentiary hearing, Father did not claim in his petition 

that a change in the child’s health insurance was a basis for modification, 

nor did Father’s child support worksheet he submitted with that petition 

indicate any change in the child’s health insurance coverage. To the 

contrary, Father’s own child support worksheet credits him with $660.00 

monthly for the child’s health insurance cost and Father’s financial affidavit 

expressly states that the child is covered under Father’s health insurance.

On this record, Father has shown no error. 

¶22 Finally, Father takes issue with the superior court’s order that 

Mother’s $4,500.00 attorney’s fees award “is entered in the nature of child 

support . . . .” But Father provides no legal authority to support his position.

ARCAP 13(a)(7)(A) (requiring arguments on appeal to contain “supporting 

reasons for each contention, and with citations of legal authorities . . . on 

which appellant relies”).

IV. Attorney’s Fees on Appeal.

¶23 Both parties request attorney’s fees on appeal under A.R.S. 

§ 25-324(A). Having considered both parties’ financial resources and the 

reasonableness of positions taken, in our discretion we grant Mother’s 

request for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs upon compliance with 

Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 21.
SALUS v. MATA

Decision of the Court

8

CONCLUSION

¶24 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.