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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

STATE OF ARIZONA, ex rel., the DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC 

SECURITY (RACHEL MORELAND), 1 Petitioner/Appellee, 

v.

ANTHONY HUTCHISON, Respondent/Appellant. 

No. 1 CA-CV 19-0524 FC 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. FC2012-093111 

The Honorable Gregg Clarke Gibbons, Judge Pro Tempore (Retired) 

AFFIRMED

APPEARANCES

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Carol A. Salvati

Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee

Anthony Hutchison, Florence

Respondent/Appellant

1 This caption is amended as reflected. The amended caption shall be used 

on all further documents filed in this appeal.

FILED 7-9-2020
STATE, et al. v. HUTCHISON

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge Maria Elena Cruz2 joined.

W I L L I A M S, Judge:

¶1 Anthony Hutchison appeals from an administrative decision 

affirming a limited income withholding order. For the following reasons, 

we affirm. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

¶2 Hutchison and Rachel Moreland have six children in 

common. In 2013, the superior court issued a decree of dissolution and 

ordered Hutchison to pay Moreland $97 per month in child support. 

Sometime thereafter, Hutchison was sentenced to a term in the Arizona 

Department of Corrections (“ADC”) following a felony conviction. In 2018, 

due to Hutchison’s incarceration, the State petitioned to modify 

Hutchison’s monthly child support obligation to zero. The superior court 

granted the State’s petition and suspended any accrual of interest during 

incarceration. Hutchison, however, still owed approximately $4,000 in child 

support arrearages.

¶3 Between December 2018 and January 2019, the following 

sums were deposited into Hutchison’s inmate account: (1) $150 from his 

mother; (2) $200 from a cousin; and (3) $100 from a friend. On January 28, 

2019, the Arizona Department of Economic Security (“ADES”) issued a 

limited income withholding order directing ADC to withhold a lump sum 

payment of $4,129.02 from Hutchison’s inmate account for child support 

arrearages. Two days later, ADC withdrew $395.08 from Hutchison’s 

account. Hutchison filed a request for administrative review of the limited 

income withholding order under A.R.S. § 25-522. ADES reviewed and 

upheld the order. 

2 Judge Maria Elena Cruz replaces the Honorable Kenton D. Jones, who was 

originally assigned to this panel. Judge Cruz has read the briefs and 

reviewed the record.
STATE, et al. v. HUTCHISON

Decision of the Court

3

¶4 Hutchison then appealed seeking judicial review in the 

superior court claiming ADES erred in categorizing deposits to his account 

as lump sum payments under § 25-505(E) and allowing the funds to be 

withheld. The State filed a motion to dismiss Hutchison’s appeal for failure 

to state a claim, citing to Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 

Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure 29(a)(6). Hutchison responded, and 

also filed a motion requesting findings of fact and conclusions of law. 

Following an evidentiary hearing,3 the court issued an under advisement

ruling granting the State’s motion to dismiss Hutchison’s appeal and

denying Hutchison’s request for findings of fact and conclusions of law.

¶5 Hutchison timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under 

Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and A.R.S. §§ 12-

120.21(A)(1), -913 and -2101(A)(1). See Svendsen v. Ariz. Dept. of Transp., 

Motor Vehicle Div., 234 Ariz. 528, 533, ¶13 (App. 2014) (finding appellate 

jurisdiction under the Administrative Review Act for cases “permitted by 

law to be appealed from the superior court”) (quoting A.R.S. § 12-

120.21(A)(1)).

DISCUSSION

¶6 On appeal to the superior court, A.R.S. § 12-910 affords a 

party the right to a trial de novo and/or an evidentiary hearing, but only if 

requested.4 Hutchison did not request either an evidentiary hearing or a trial 

de novo. Rather, Hutchison specifically informed both ADES and the 

superior court, “[a] trial de novo is not requested.” Hutchison, therefore, 

was entitled to have the superior court review the administrative decision 

to determine whether that decision was “illegal, arbitrary, capricious or 

involved an abuse of discretion.” Havasu Heights Ranch and Dev. Corp. v. 

Desert Valley Wood Products, Inc., 167 Ariz. 383, 386 (App. 1990). 

¶7 The Rules of Procedure for Judicial Review of Administrative 

Decisions (“JRAD”) govern, and expressly instruct that “[e]xcept as 

provided elsewhere in these rules, the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure do 

3 The court’s under advisement ruling is titled “IV-D ORAL ARGUMENT,” 

but indicates testimony was taken and refers to the proceeding as an 

“Evidentiary Hearing.”

4 Subsection A provides in part: “If requested by a party . . . the court shall 

hold an evidentiary hearing . . . .” (Emphasis added.) Similarly, subsection 

C provides: “[T]he trial shall be de novo if trial de novo is demanded . . . .”

(Emphasis added.)
STATE, et al. v. HUTCHISON

Decision of the Court

4

not apply to proceedings held pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-901 to -914.” JRAD 

Rule 1(a) and (b). Further, on appeal, the superior court is tasked to “affirm, 

reverse, modify or vacate and remand the agency action.” A.R.S. § 12-

910(E). 

¶8 Here, the superior court “dismissed” Hutchison’s appeal 

based upon Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and Arizona Rule of 

Family Law Procedure 29(a)(6). However, because Hutchison appealed 

ADES’s determination under § 12-904, neither the Rules of Civil Procedure, 

nor the Rules of Family Law Procedure, are applicable. See JRAD Rule 1(b).

Nothing in A.R.S. §§ 12-901 to -914, nor JRAD, authorizes the superior court 

to “dismiss” a timely administrative appeal; rather, the superior court’s 

authority was to “affirm, reverse, modify or vacate and remand the agency 

action.” A.R.S. § 12-910(E). It was improper, therefore, for the superior court

to “dismiss” the appeal based upon procedural rules that do not apply. The 

State concedes this point.5

¶9 Despite the superior court’s labeling of its ruling as a grant of 

a motion to dismiss, a review of the record demonstrates the courtreviewed 

the merits of the administrative decision and effectively affirmed the same. 

In its under advisement ruling, the court made specific findings of fact and 

conclusions of law,6 citing to and relying upon legal authority in addressing

the substantive issues Hutchison raises on appeal. In doing so, the court 

applied the correct legal analysis upon which ADES affirmed the 

underlying income withholding order. More specifically, the court made 

the following pertinent findings: 

5 Of note, both Hutchison and the State request that we reach the merits of 

the underlying administrative decision despite the court’s error in granting 

the motion to dismiss.

6 A.R.S. § 12-911(C) mandates: “On motion of a party before rendition of 

judgment, the superior court shall make findings of fact and state 

conclusions of law on which its judgment is based.” Hutchison made a 

written request for the same. In its under advisement ruling, the court 

indicated it was denying Hutchison’s request but only after the court made 

several express findings of fact and reached conclusions of law. The record 

thus demonstrates the court did comply with Hutchison’s request made 

pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-911(C) despite the conflicting language in the 

court’s ruling. 
STATE, et al. v. HUTCHISON

Decision of the Court

5

[1.] [A]rrearages [Hutchison] accrued under the [previous 

child support] order were not extinguished by the 

modification.

[2.] [ADES] has pursued administrative remedies as required 

or permitted by law to collect the arrears due as is done 

routinely in all child support cases. Pursuant to [A.R.S. § 25-

505], [ADES] issued a Limited Income Withholding Order to 

obtain funds being held for [Hutchison’s] benefit by [ADC] in 

order to apply said funds towards the past due child support 

owed by [Hutchison]. [ADC] withheld $395.08.

[3.] [Hutchison] requested an administrative review of the 

Limited Income Withholding Order on February 11, 2019.

[4.] [ADES] Administrative Review Unit determined that the 

case met the criteria for Limited Income Withholding and 

found in favor of the State. The final determination was dated 

February 12, 2019.

[5.] [Hutchison’s] Notice of Appeal of Administrative 

Decision was timely filed.

[6.] [T]he source of the funds in the [inmate] account was

lump sum gifts to [Hutchison] from [Hutchison’s] mother, 

cousin and friend.

[7.] [ADES] does have the authority to issue an income 

withholding order to [ADC], which thereafter was obligated 

to withhold and transmit the funds to the Clearinghouse. [See 

A.R.S. § 25-505(A), (D)]. 

[8.] [Hutchison] sets forth no basis in his Notice of Appeal of 

Administrative Decision . . . that would justify his objection to 

the State’s right, as a matter of law, to issue a Limited Income 

Withholding Order to collect delinquent child support.

[9.] [Hutchison] is aware of, and admits, the obligation for 

child support in this case and that he is delinquent.

[10.] [W]ithholding of periodic earnings has been postponed 

until [Hutchison’s] release from incarceration, but that does 

not prohibit the use of other collection remedies which are 

cumulative and permissible by law. [See A.R.S. § 25-501(D), 
STATE, et al. v. HUTCHISON

Decision of the Court

6

(E); see also State ex rel. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. v. Torres, 245 Ariz. 

554 (App. 2018)].

¶10 These findings demonstrate the superior court thoroughly 

reviewed the administrative decision, made appropriate findings of fact 

based upon that review, and reached valid conclusions of law in 

considering Hutchison’s appeal. And although the court ultimately upheld 

the administrative decision through an incorrect grant of a motion to 

dismiss, we may affirm the court’s decision on any ground supported by 

the record. Pettit v. Pettit, 218 Ariz. 529, 531, ¶ 4 (App. 2008). We therefore 

may “reach the underlying issue of whether the administrative action was 

illegal, arbitrary, capricious or involved an abuse of discretion.” Havasu 

Heights, 167 Ariz. at 386.

¶11 We will affirm an administrative decision appealed to the 

superior court under the Administrative Review Act if the record contains 

evidence to support the superior court’s judgment. Id. Here, Hutchison 

argues ADES erred in categorizing gifts of $150, $200, and $100 from his 

mother, cousin, and friend, respectively, as lump sum payments under 

§ 25-505(E). We addressed this issue in State ex rel. Department of Economic

Security v. Torres, 245 Ariz. 554 (App. 2018), which the superior court cites

in its order. 

¶12 In Torres, ADC withheld $90.07 from the account of an inmate 

owing child support arrearages, pursuant to a limited income withholding 

order. Id. at 556, ¶ 3. In our analysis of § 25-505(E), we concluded that a 

“gift” of $120 from the inmate’s mother, wired into the inmate’s ADC 

account, qualified as a “lump sum payment” under § 25-505(E). Id. at 559, 

¶ 19. We further held that because ADC became a “holder . . . of a lump 

sum payment that is . . . held for the benefit of an obligor,” see A.R.S. § 25-

505(A), ADES “had authority to issue the withholding order to ADC, which 

thereafter was obligated to withhold and transmit the money to the 

clearinghouse,” Torres, 245 Ariz. at 559, ¶ 19; see also A.R.S. § 25-505(A), (D).

Applying the holding in Torres to the matter at hand, ADES did not err in 

characterizing the deposits from Hutchison’s mother, cousin, and friend as 

lump sum payments eligible for withholding from ADC consistent with the 

limited income withholding order.
STATE, et al. v. HUTCHISON

Decision of the Court

7

¶13 Thus, based upon the record before us,7 we cannot conclude 

the ADES decision “was illegal, arbitrary, capricious or involved an abuse 

of discretion.” See Havasu Heights, 167 Ariz. at 386.

CONCLUSION

¶14 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

7 The record does not include the transcript from the superior court 

evidentiary hearing. In the absence of a transcript, we presume the record 

supports the court’s ruling. Kohler v. Kohler, 211 Ariz. 106, 108, ¶ 8 n.1 (App. 

2005).