Court Opinion

ID: 9955425
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-28 16:03:29.241979+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:41.250904
License: Public Domain

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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

           ALFRED JOHN LEE PETTERSEN, Petitioner/Appellant,

                                         v.

             ANNA MARIE PETTERSEN, Respondent/Appellee.

                            No. 1 CA-CV 23-0294 FC
                               FILED 03-28-2024

           Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                          No. FN2015-091060
           The Honorable Harriet M. Bernick, Judge Pro Tempore

                                   AFFIRMED

                                    COUNSEL

The Nathanson Law Firm, Scottsdale
By Philip J. Nathanson
Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant

Trent S. Trueblood Esq., Peoria
By Trent S. Trueblood
Counsel for Respondent/Appellee
                        PETTERSEN v. PETTERSEN
                           Decision of the Court

                        MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Michael S. Catlett delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Angela K. Paton and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined.

C A T L E T T, Judge:

¶1           Anna Pettersen (“Wife) and Alfred Pettersen (“Husband”)
divorced in 2015. At that time, the superior court entered a consent decree
requiring Husband to pay $6,000 per month to Wife for spousal
maintenance. After Husband stopped paying in 2022, Wife petitioned to
enforce Husband’s spousal-maintenance obligation. Husband moved to
dismiss Wife’s petition. The superior court denied the motion to dismiss
and ultimately held Husband in contempt for willfully failing to make
maintenance payments. Husband appeals only the denial of his motion to
dismiss, arguing the court should have granted the motion based on the
terms of a separate trust agreement. We affirm the court’s denial of the
motion to dismiss.

                 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2            Husband and Wife were married in 2014. In April 2015,
Husband petitioned for dissolution of the marriage. Eventually, the parties
resolved the divorce proceedings by executing a consent decree, which the
superior court entered in July 2015.

¶3             The consent decree required Husband to pay Wife spousal
maintenance of $6,000 per month. The consent decree stated: “Husband
agrees to pay Wife [a] spousal maintenance payment of $6,000 per month
pursuant to Article VI, Section 6B of the AJLP Revocable Trust dated April
29, 2015. This award shall be non-modifiable as to both amount and
duration.” The AJLP Revocable Trust (“Trust”), in turn, provided the
following: “If PLEXUS WORLDWIDE, LLP does not distribute sufficient
partnership distributions to make the monthly payment there will be no
right for the beneficiary hereunder to pursue the Trustee for violation of the
trust terms.”

¶4            Husband stopped making spousal-maintenance payments in
2022. In early 2023, Wife filed a Petition to Enforce Spousal Maintenance
(“Petition”), asking the superior court to “order [Husband] to resume

                                      2
                        PETTERSEN v. PETTERSEN
                           Decision of the Court

making monthly spousal maintenance payments as required by the Decree”
and enter a judgment for past-due maintenance payments. Husband
moved to dismiss the Petition under Arizona Family Law Rule of Procedure
29(a)(6) and Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Husband argued that
the consent decree and the Trust made his spousal-maintenance obligation
contingent upon receiving partnership distributions from Plexus
Worldwide, LLP (“Plexus”). Husband claimed he was no longer receiving
distributions from Plexus, so Wife’s “right to receive maintenance . . . was
terminated.”

¶5             The superior court denied Husband’s motion to dismiss,
concluding that Wife “did state . . . a valid claim, which is for spousal
maintenance.” The court also observed that the consent decree “is very
specific in that it says nonmodifiable both as to amount and duration” and
“the [Decree] gives the court the ability to look at those terms and determine
whether or not spousal maintenance is something that is required to be
paid.” The superior court found Husband in contempt for willfully failing
to make maintenance payments, ordering Husband to pay a shortfall purge
of $10,000.00 by April 17, 2023, and entered judgment against Husband in
the amount of $60,000.00 for missed maintenance payments and $2,249.91
for interest.

¶6           Husband timely appealed. We have jurisdiction. See A.R.S.
§ 12-2101(A)(1).

                               DISCUSSION

¶7            On appeal, Husband challenges only the superior court’s
denial of his motion to dismiss. Husband argues that the superior court
erred in not dismissing Wife’s Petition because his spousal-maintenance
obligation terminated under the Decree and Trust when he stopped
receiving partnership distributions from Plexus. Husband also argues that
the superior court should have considered the Trust when deciding his
motion to dismiss. We conclude the superior court did not err in denying
Husband’s motion to dismiss.

¶8             We review de novo the superior court’s denial of a motion to
dismiss a post-decree petition for failure to state a claim. See Hopi Tribe v.
Ariz. Snowbowl Resort Ltd. P’ship, 245 Ariz. 397, 400 ¶ 8 (2018). We assume
the petition’s well-pled facts are true and will reverse the denial of a motion
to dismiss only if the petitioner “would not be entitled to relief under any
interpretation of the facts susceptible of proof.” Id. (quotation marks and
citation omitted).

                                      3
                       PETTERSEN v. PETTERSEN
                          Decision of the Court

¶9             A party may commence a post-decree action by filing a
petition to enforce spousal maintenance support. Ariz. R. Fam. L. P.
23(a)(10). A petition must contain “a simple statement of a claim that shows
the petitioner is entitled to relief” and “a demand for the relief sought[.]”
Ariz. R. Fam. L. P. 24(a)(2)–(3). This standard, which mimics Arizona Rule
of Civil Procedure 8, is meant to “give the opponent fair notice of the nature
and basis of the claim and indicate generally the type of litigation
involved.” Cullen v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 218 Ariz. 417, 419 ¶ 6 (2008).

¶10           Wife’s Petition complied with Rule 24 and otherwise stated a
valid claim for relief. The Petition referenced the consent decree and
Husband’s spousal-maintenance obligations. The Petition quoted the
provision in the consent decree providing that the spousal-maintenance
award “shall be non-modifiable as to both amount and duration.” The
Petition explained that Wife was seeking relief for missed payments and
interest and an order requiring Husband to resume payments. And the
Petition stated the relief sought—$48,000 in back due payments at that time,
plus $550 in interest. Taking the facts Wife alleged in the Petition as true,
Wife stated a valid claim for relief.

¶11            Husband claims the superior court refused to consider the
Trust in deciding his motion to dismiss. To the contrary, the record reflects
that the court considered the terms of the Trust available to it (those quoted
in Husband’s motion to dismiss) and concluded they did not negate Wife’s
claim for relief. For example, the court explained its view that the Trust was
merely “the vehicle” through which Husband would pay Wife. The court
then concluded that “Husband can't get out of his agreement to pay just
because the funds [from the Trust] have been deflated or are completely
depleted.” Husband’s argument that the court ignored the Trust is
inaccurate.

¶12           Husband’s argument that his spousal-maintenance obligation
automatically terminated also misses the mark. Neither the language in the
Trust nor Plexus’s cessation of partnership distributions could automatically
terminate Husband’s spousal-maintenance obligation.            Arizona law
provides that “the provisions of any decree respecting maintenance or
support may be modified or terminated only on a showing of changed
circumstances that are substantial and continuing[.]” A.R.S. § 25-327(A); see
also McClendon v. McClendon, 243 Ariz. 399, 401 ¶ 9 (App. 2017) (”The
burden of proving changed circumstances is on the party seeking
modification.”) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Moreover, the
party seeking to have a maintenance obligation terminated or modified
should do so through a “motion or order to show cause to modify or

                                      4
                        PETTERSEN v. PETTERSEN
                           Decision of the Court

terminate.” See A.R.S. § 25-327(A). And, even if such a motion or order is
successful, it does not impact “any amount that may have accrued as an
arrearage before the date of notice of the motion or order to show cause to
modify or terminate.” Id. The only time “the obligation to pay future
maintenance” automatically terminates is “on the death of either party or the
remarriage of the party receiving maintenance.” A.R.S. § 25-327(B).

¶13           Here, the language in the Trust combined with Plexus’s
cessation of partnership distributions did not automatically terminate
Husband’s maintenance obligation. See id. And Husband did not file a
motion to terminate his maintenance obligations and make a “showing of
changed circumstances that are substantial and continuing.” A.R.S. § 25-
327(A). Because Wife’s Petition set forth a valid claim for relief, the superior
court did not err in denying Husband’s motion to dismiss.

                              ATTORNEY FEES

¶14           Wife requests attorney fees on appeal under A.R.S. § 25-324.
We have considered the parties’ relative financial resources and the
reasonableness of their appellate positions. See A.R.S. § 25-324(A). In the
exercise of our discretion, we award attorney fees and costs to Wife upon
compliance with Arizona Rule of Appellate Procedure 21.

                                CONCLUSION

¶15           We affirm.

                           AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
                           FILED: TM

                                          5