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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JACQUELINE L. SOETAN, Petitioner/Appellee, 

v.

RAPHAEL A. SOETAN, Respondent/Appellant. 

No. 1 CA-CV 20-0068 FC 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. FC2009-003343 

The Honorable Kevin B. Wein, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Simmons & Gottfried PLLC, Scottsdale

By Alona M. Gottfried

Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee

Wees Law Firm LLC, Phoenix

By James F. Wees 

Counsel for Respondent/Appellant

FILED 12-22-2020
SOETAN v. SOETAN

Decision of the Court

2 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Cynthia J. Bailey delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.

B A I L E Y, Judge:

¶1 Raphael Soetan (“Father”) appeals the trial court’s orders 

denying him credit against his child support obligation and calculating his 

child support arrearage. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Father and Jacqueline Soetan (“Mother”) were married for 18 

years and had three minor children when Mother filed for divorce. In 

October 2009, the court entered a default decree of dissolution that required 

Father to pay $1,024 per month in child support, $6,000 per month in 

spousal maintenance, and the mortgage, utilities, insurance and taxes on 

the marital residence for as long as he lived there. Even though the decree, 

child support worksheet, and income withholding order all stated Father 

owed monthly child support of $1,024, the child support order set a 

payment amount of $0. After the divorce, Father and Mother continued to 

live together in the marital home with the children, and Father paid Mother

between $4,700 and $6,600 each month until he moved out in March 2015. 

¶3 In August 2015, Mother petitioned the court to hold Father in 

contempt, arguing he had failed to pay spousal maintenance and child 

support dating back to October 2009. After a two-day trial in January and 

February 2017, the trial court issued an order (“2017 Order”) declining to 

hold Father in contempt. As to spousal maintenance, the court found

Mother was estopped from claiming arrearages because she had delayed

bringing the claim and had accepted Father’s monthly payments of less 

than the ordered amount without objection. As to child support, the court 

acknowledged the discrepancy between the language of the decree and the 

child support order, but found the decree controlled and that Father knew 

the decree required him to pay the ordered amount. The court found, 

however, that because Father’s monthly payments to Mother between 

October 2009 and March 2015 “more than covered” his obligations to pay 

the mortgage and other expenses, the payments could “also be applied 

towards his monthly child support order of $1,024.” Therefore, Father
SOETAN v. SOETAN

Decision of the Court

3 

owed no child support arrearage “for the period in question.”1 The court 

did not issue a corrected child support order, and Father failed to pay any 

child support after March 2015. 

¶4 In February 2019, Mother again petitioned to hold Father in 

contempt for failing to pay child support. Six months later, Father 

petitioned to modify legal decision-making and parenting time and sought 

a calculation of overpayment of child support. Father claimed that the 2017 

Order eliminated his obligation to pay child support during the time he 

lived with the children and thereby entitled him to a credit toward future 

child support for the amounts he paid to Mother between October 2009 and 

March 2015. The trial court dismissed Father’s overpayment claim, finding

that the 2017 Order did not entitle him to a “credit” against future child 

support. 

¶5 After a hearing, the court then found Father failed to pay child 

support from March 1, 2017, through December 18, 2019, and entered an 

arrearage judgment. Mother moved to amend the judgment, arguing that

the ruling in the 2017 Order that Father owed no past-due child support 

applied only to the period before Father moved out of the marital home in 

March 2015. She asserted the 2017 Order did not conclude that Father had 

satisfied his child support obligations for the period between March 2015 

and February 2017 and moreover, that Father admitted he had not paid

child support since March 2015. After full briefing, the trial court granted 

Mother’s motion and ruled the 2017 Order applied only to child support 

owed from October 2009 through March 2015. The amended judgment

calculated Father’s arrearage from April 1, 2015, determining that he owed

$58,368, plus interest. 

¶6 We have jurisdiction over Father’s timely appeal pursuant to 

Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised 

Statutes §§ 12-120.21(A)(1) and -2101(A)(1). 

DISCUSSION

¶7 Father argues the 2017 Order indicated that he had overpaid 

spousal maintenance for six years, and argues the court erred by failing to 

1 The court suggested that Father might have been able to change the

obligation to pay child support while he was living with Mother and the 

children (presumably because he was paying all of the children’s expenses), 

but the court noted that Father had not sought during that period to modify 

the specified child support obligation. 
SOETAN v. SOETAN

Decision of the Court

4 

grant him a credit against his child support for those overpayments.2 The 

premise of Father’s argument, however, is unfounded. The trial court did 

not rule in the 2017 Order that Father had overpaid spousal maintenance. 

The court found that Father made monthly payments of between $4,700 and 

$6,600 while the parties lived together and concluded that Mother’s 

acceptance of those payments without objection estopped her from 

claiming a spousal maintenance arrearage for the period at issue. The court

did not, as Father asserts, set aside the spousal maintenance obligation or 

conclude that Father had overpaid his spousal obligations over that period. 

¶8 Moreover, Father has waived any contention that he was not 

obligated to pay child support during the period that he lived with Mother 

and the children because he failed to make that argument when the trial 

court considered evidence of the payments he had made during that period. 

See Odom v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Ariz., 216 Ariz. 530, 535, ¶ 18 (App. 2007)

(“[A]rguments raised for the first time on appeal are untimely and deemed 

waived.”). The trial court essentially found in 2017 that Father’s payments 

to Mother during the time he lived with her and the children satisfied his 

child support obligation, but the court specifically noted that he had not 

sought a change in child support during this period. 

¶9 Father also challenges the trial court’s 2019 ruling that, under 

the 2017 Order, his child support obligations were current only through 

March 2015, when he moved out of the family residence. On appeal, he

argues that the ruling violates res judicata. That principle does not apply 

here, however. The 2019 order from which Father appeals did not amend 

the earlier ruling. Instead, the 2019 order correctly interpreted the 2017 

Order to hold that Father had satisfied his child support obligations only 

during the time he was living with Mother and the children. 

¶10 Mother requests her reasonable attorneys’ fees on appeal 

pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-349 and 25-324. After considering the financial

resources of both parties and Father’s positions on appeal, Mother’s request 

for attorneys’ fees is granted pursuant to § 25-324, contingent upon her 

compliance with Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 21. 

2 To the extent Father is challenging his civil contempt finding, this court 

lacks jurisdiction. See Stoddard v. Donahoe, 224 Ariz. 152, 154, ¶ 7 (App. 2010) 

(“A special action petition is the appropriate method to challenge a civil 

contempt order because the finding of contempt and civil sanctions are not 

appealable.”). 
SOETAN v. SOETAN

Decision of the Court

5 

CONCLUSION

¶11 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the orders finding Father 

owes child support arrears and amending the start date of his arrears to 

April 1, 2015.