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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE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 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS
D IVISION O NE

I n re the Matter of:

J ACQUELINE L. SOETAN
, Pet itioner/Appellee
,

v.

RAP HAEL A. SOETAN
, Respondent/Appellant

.
No. 1 CA- CV 20 -0068 FC

A ppeal 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

W ees Law Firm LLC
, Phoenix By James F. Wees C ounsel for Respondent/Appel lant FILED 12-22-2020SOETAN 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 order s denying him credit against his child su pport obligation and calculating his child support arrear age

. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Fath er and Jacqu eline Soetan (“Mother”) were married for 18 years and had three minor child ren 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 ta xes on the m arital 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 . A fter the divorce, Fa ther and Mo ther 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 delay ed bringing the claim and had accept ed 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
t he decree required him to pay the ordered amount

. The court found
, however, t hat because Father ’s monthly payments to Mother between October 2009 and March 2015 “ more than cover ed ” his obligation s to pay the mortgage and other expenses
, the payments c ould “also be applied towards his monthly child support order of $1,024 .” Therefore, FatherSOETAN 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 c redit 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 , fi nding that the 2017 O rder 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 , argu ing that the ruling in the 2017 O rder 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 O rder did not conclude that Father had satisfied his child support obligations for the period between Ma rch 2015 and February 2017 and moreover , that Father admitted he had not paid child support since March 2015. After full briefing, t he trial court granted Mother’s motion and ruled the 2017 O rder applied only to child support owed from October 2009 through March 2015. The amended judgment calculat ed 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 an d 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 obl igation

.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 spou sal 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 childr en 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 no t sought a change in child support during this period

. ¶9 F ather also challenges the trial court’s 2019 ruling that, under the 2017 O rder , his child support obligations were current only through March 2015, when he moved out of the family residence. On appe al, he argues that t he ruling violates res judicata

. Th at 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 consider ing 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 order s finding Father owes child support arrears and amending the start date of his arrears to April 1, 2015.