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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

TODD HERMLING, Petitioner/Appellee, 

v.

MAITE P. HERMLING, Respondent/Appellant. 

No. 1 CA-CV 20-0424 FC 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. FC2014-006516 

The Honorable Jacki Ireland, Judge Pro Tempore

REVERSED AND REMANDED

COUNSEL

Morse Law Group, P.C., Phoenix

By Judith A. Morse

Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee

The Rahaman Law Firm PLLC, Scottsdale

By Ashley Blair Rahaman

Counsel for Respondent/Appellant

FILED 4-27-2021
HERMLING v. HERMLING

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge David B. Gass delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge David D. Weinzweig joined.

G A S S, Judge:

¶1 Maite Hermling appeals the superior court’s dismissal of her 

petition to modify spousal maintenance. Because the superior court did not 

comply with the Arizona Rules of Family Law Procedure when it dismissed

the petition, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Todd and Maite Hermling divorced in 2016. Under their

divorce decree, husband was required to pay spousal maintenance to wife 

“in the amount of $7000 per month for two years, $5000 per month for 

another three years, and $3000 per month for an additional 7 years.” Several 

months later, husband was diagnosed with metastatic melanoma. Because

the diagnosis prevented husband from continuing his career as a pilot, he 

petitioned to modify the spousal maintenance award. Following an 

evidentiary hearing, the superior court granted husband’s request and 

reduced his spousal maintenance obligation by approximately one-half. 

¶3 In April 2020, wife petitioned to modify the revised spousal 

maintenance award, alleging husband’s “medical condition and prognosis 

have improved since his terminal diagnosis in December 2016.” Wife also 

included summaries of husband’s bank statements, arguing his “actual 

income is greater than” determined at the previous evidentiary hearing. 

After reviewing wife’s petition, the superior court ordered both parties to 

appear at a resolution management conference (RMC). 

¶4 At the RMC, the superior court heard brief arguments from 

wife’s and husband’s counsel but took no evidence. The superior court then 

found, “[b]ased on the information and the pleadings . . . there is not alleged 

substantial continuing change of circumstances to justify the petition to

modify” and dismissed wife’s petition, “taking no further action.” Wife 

timely appealed. This court has jurisdiction under article VI, section 9, of 

the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. § 12-2101.A.1.
HERMLING v. HERMLING

Decision of the Court

3

ANALYSIS

¶5 Wife argues the superior court erred by dismissing her 

petition without “an explanation of the Petition’s deficiencies, and an 

opportunity to cure those deficiencies” as required by the Rules of Family 

Law Procedure. This court reviews the interpretation of court rules de novo, 

applying the methods of statutory interpretation. Goldman v. Sahl, 248 Ariz. 

512, 522, ¶ 29 (App. 2020). 

¶6 Once a party submits a petition seeking to modify spousal 

maintenance,

the court must review the petition and (a) reject the petition 

for failure to state grounds upon which relief can be granted, 

or (b) issue the Order to Appear. If the court rejects the petition,

the court must provide the applicant with an explanation of the 

deficiency and provide an opportunity to correct the deficiency

within 30 days after the date of the rejection notice. In deciding 

whether to reject a petition, the court cannot assess credibility 

or weigh evidence. If the court issues the Order to Appear, it 

must set a resolution management conference or evidentiary 

hearing, as appropriate. No evidence may be taken at a 

resolution management conference except under emergency 

circumstances.

. . . .

At the resolution management conference, the court may take 

any action provided in Rule 76(c).

Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 91(i) (emphasis added).

¶7 Husband argues the dismissal of wife’s petition at the RMC 

was within the superior court’s authority to issue “other orders as the court 

deems appropriate.” See Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 76(c)(13). We disagree. 

¶8 As the language of Rule 76 makes clear, an RMC “is not 

intended to resolve disputed issues but to find points of agreement in order 

to shorten or circumvent adversarial proceedings.” Villares v. Pineda, 217 

Ariz. 623, 625, ¶ 15 (App. 2008); see also Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 76(a) (“The 

purpose of [an RMC] is to facilitate agreements between the parties.”).

Accordingly, Rule 76 allows the court to identify contested issues and issue 

necessary scheduling orders in anticipation of an evidentiary hearing. It
HERMLING v. HERMLING

Decision of the Court

4

does not, however, give the superior court authority to bypass Rule 91(i) 

and dismiss outright a petition to modify spousal maintenance.

¶9 To be sure, the superior court retains the authority—even at 

an RMC—to “reject the petition for failure to state grounds upon which 

relief can be granted.” See Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 91(i)(1), (i)(3); 76(c)(13). But 

the court “must provide the applicant with an explanation of the deficiency 

and provide an opportunity to correct the deficiency within 30 days” before 

dismissing the petition. See Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 91(i)(1), (i)(3); 76(c)(6).

¶10 Indeed, husband concedes “the trial court did not strictly 

follow Rule 91(i).” Because the superior court did not provide wife an 

explanation of her petition’s deficiency and an opportunity to correct, the 

dismissal cannot stand. 

ATTORNEY FEES ON APPEAL

¶11 Husband requests his attorney fees on appeal under A.R.S. 

§ 25-324. After considering the relevant factors, we exercise our discretion 

and deny his request. As the non-prevailing party, we also deny husband’s 

request for taxable costs.

CONCLUSION

¶12 We reverse the superior court’s order dismissing wife’s 

petition to modify spousal maintenance. We remand the matter for further 

proceedings consistent with this decision, expressing no opinion on the 

merits of wife’s petition.