Court Opinion

ID: 9946288
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-29 17:02:25.051779+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:38.621559
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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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:

                   TRANG VAN CAMP, Petitioner/Appellee,

                                         v.

              JONATHAN VAN CAMP, Respondent/Appellant.

                            No. 1 CA-CV 23-0297 FC
                                 FILED 2-29-2024

            Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                           No. FC2015-000407
                 The Honorable Monica Edelstein, Judge

                                    AFFIRMED

                                    COUNSEL

Singer Pistiner, P.C., Scottsdale
By Jason Pistiner
Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee

Jonathan Van Camp, Chandler
Respondent/Appellant
                        VAN CAMP v. VAN CAMP
                          Decision of the Court

                      MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Judge Michael J. Brown joined.

T H U M M A, Judge:

¶1           Jonathan Van Camp (Father) appeals from an order
dismissing his petition to modify spousal maintenance and granting Trang
Van Camp’s (Mother) petition to enforce in this post-decree proceeding.
Because Father has shown no error, the orders are affirmed.

                FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY1

¶2            Father and Mother have three children, all of whom are now
adults. In 2015, Mother petitioned for divorce and in 2016 the superior court
entered a decree of dissolution. Significant litigation addressing spousal
maintenance, child support and parenting time followed, resulting in more
than 400 post-decree docket entries.

¶3             In May 2022, Mother filed a petition to enforce, arguing Father
failed to pay her portion of their 1st Bank Savings Account, “failed to pay
his 50% share of the cost of preparing QDRO’s” for Father’s Motorola 401K
account, and failed to pay all his spousal maintenance obligations. In
September 2022, before the court ruled on Mother’s petition to enforce,
Father filed a petition to modify spousal maintenance.2

1 The facts and procedural history recited are limited to those relevant to

this specific appeal; additional information is available in Marriage of Van
Camp v. Van Camp, 2017 WL2875099 (App. 2017) and Van Camp v. Van Camp,
1 CA-CV 20-0607 FC, 2021 WL 4783733 (Ariz. App. Oct. 14, 2021),
addressing issues in prior appeals.

2 Although Father’s petition originally sought to modify child support as

well (given the youngest child was turning 18), in January 2023, the parties
filed an agreement modifying Father’s child support obligation to reflect
that their last minor child had reached the age of majority. Accordingly, the
appeal is limited to his request to modify spousal maintenance.

                                      2
                       VAN CAMP v. VAN CAMP
                         Decision of the Court

¶4            In a November 2022 unsigned minute entry, the superior
court denied Father’s petition to modify, stating his arguments had been
rejected by this court in a prior appeal, see Van Camp, 2021 WL 4783733, and
that he provided no independent basis for modification. In March 2023, in
a final judgment issued under Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure
(ARFLP) 78 the superior court granted Mother’s petition to enforce,
directing Father to pay $500 for “the [QDRO] preparation fees” and $10,000
in unpaid spousal maintenance or face contempt.

¶5           Father challenges the denial of his petition to modify and the
granting of Mother’s petition to enforce.

                              DISCUSSION

I.    This Court Has Appellate Jurisdiction Over Father’s Appeal from
      the November 2022 Minute Entry.

¶6            Mother argues this court lacks appellate jurisdiction over the
denial of Father’s petition to modify “because Father did not timely file a
notice of appeal.” Conceding the November 2022 minute entry was
unsigned, Mother argues that, because it resolves a post-decree petition, it
“did not need to be signed to be an appealable order.” Relying on Yee v. Yee,
251 Ariz. 71, 74 ¶ 10 (Ariz. 2021), she argues that Father’s petition
constitutes a “special order issued after entry of a judgment” which “is
appealable without a certification of finality under Rule 78.”

¶7            Mothers’ argument fails. For a time, Mother’s description of
the law was correct. However, effective August 29, 2022, the definition of
“judgment” was amended on an emergency basis to include “any post-
judgment petition filed under Rule 91(b) is a judgment.” ARFLP 78(a)(1)
(effective 8/29/2022). That amendment became applicable in all pending
cases on August 29, 2022. Id. The November 2022 denial of Father’s petition
to modify resolves just such a post-judgment petition. Because that
November 2022 ruling was not certified as a final judgment or partial final
judgment, see ARFLP 78(b) & (c), it was not appealable. See also Motley v.
Simmons, 537 P.3d 807, 811 ¶ 13 (App. 2023) (explaining that Rule 78, as
amended, “advises courts, litigants, and attorneys of the two mutually
exclusive ways by which they may ensure that a judgment, as defined
under Rule 78(a)(1), is appealable”).

¶8           The November 2022 ruling was only appealable when the
court entered the final judgment, certified under ARFLP 78, on March 31,
2023. And Father filed a timely notice of appeal from that final judgment.
Accordingly, the court has appellate jurisdiction over Father’s challenges to

                                     3
                        VAN CAMP v. VAN CAMP
                          Decision of the Court

the November 2022 ruling pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona
Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 12-120.21(A)(1) and -
2101(A)(2).

II.    Father Has Not Shown the Superior Court Erred in Dismissing His
       Petition to Modify Spousal Maintenance.

¶9            Father argues the court erred in finding he showed no
substantial and continuing change in circumstances justifying modification,
asserting “he presented competent evidence of” such a change. Absent a
clearly erroneous showing, this court accepts the superior court’s findings
of fact, Engstrom v. McCarthy, 243 Ariz. 469, 471 ¶ 4 (App. 2018), also
deferring to that court for credibility assessments, Femiano v. Maust, 248
Ariz. 613, 615 ¶ 9 (App. 2020). This court reviews a petition to modify
spousal maintenance for an abuse of discretion. Id.

       A.     Father Did Not Show a Substantial and Continuing Change
              in Circumstances.

¶10          As applicable here, the provisions of any decree respecting
maintenance or support “may be modified or terminated on a showing of
changed circumstances that are substantial and continuing.” A.R.S. § 25-
503(E). As movant, Father had the burden of proving the substantial and
continuing changed circumstance. McClendon v. McClendon, 243 Ariz. 399,
401 ¶ 9 (App. 2017).

¶11            The superior court concluded that the issues Father sought to
raise had “been definitively ruled on by” this court in Van Camp, 2021 WL
4783733 and that he provided “no basis to modify” spousal maintenance.
On appeal, Father argues that he “alleged a significant number of related
factual circumstances that collectively amount to at least a prima facie
showing of substantial and continuing changed circumstances requiring at
least consideration of modification.” Not so. His petition contained one
summary allegation of purported changed circumstances: a reference to
unidentified “health challenges,” meaning “[his] employment and career is
no longer certain.” Father’s “estimation of an expected, but as yet
unrealized, decrease in income is speculative evidence at best and is not
sufficient to sustain a finding of substantial changed circumstances.” Scott
v. Scott, 121 Ariz. 492, 494 (1979). Moreover, in the factual recitation of his
petition, Father contradicts his assertion by claiming he has “continuing
stable employment.”

¶12          Nor did Father allege a substantial and continuing change in
Mother’s circumstances. The petition vaguely alleged that: (1) “[he] does

                                      4
                        VAN CAMP v. VAN CAMP
                          Decision of the Court

not know whether Mother is presently employed full time as a teacher or
has begun training and employment”; (2) he speculated “Mother’s
residential property has skyrocketed [in value]”; (3) “[he] believes that [the]
value of the retirement accounts awarded to Mother have substantially
increased” and (4) because the three children were no longer minors,
“Mother’s monthly reasonable needs have substantially decreased.” By
failing to allege or provide any basis for changed circumstances, Father has
shown no error in the court concluding he did not prove a substantial and
continuing change. See Trantor v. Fredrikson, 179 Ariz. 299, 300 (1994).

¶13           Even without regard to Father’s failure to consistently pay
spousal maintenance, he has not shown that the court was required to find
that an alleged increase in the value of retirement accounts, or a decrease in
expenses, constituted a substantial and continuing change. See Scott v. Scott,
121 Ariz. 492, 496 (1979) (concluding superior court properly found
Mother’s lower monthly expenses were not substantial and continuing
changed circumstances). Moreover, by arguing that Mother’s monthly
reasonable needs have decreased because all children have reached the age
of majority, Father confuses his child support obligations with spousal
maintenance. For these reasons, Father has shown no error.

III.   Father Has Not Shown the Court Erred in Granting Mother’s
       Petition to Enforce.

¶14           Father argues the superior court erred by granting Mother’s
May 2022 petition to enforce Father’s payment obligations under the
decree. The resulting March 2023 ruling ordered Father to pay $500 for his
“portion of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order preparation fees” for
Father’s Motorola 401K account.

¶15          On appeal, Father only addresses the order that he pay $500
for preparation of the QDRO fees, asserting Mother’s claim for that
payment was time-barred under A.R.S. § 25-318(P). Father has not cited,
and the court has not found, any legal authority applying the language of
A.R.S. 25-318(P) to the enforcement of QDRO fees. Apart from this lack of
precedent, Father’s argument fails.

¶16           The decree explicitly required both parties to split the cost of
QDRO fees for the Motorola 401K account. In June 2017, Mother paid $500
on behalf of Father to prepare that QDRO. In February 2019, less than two
years later, Mother filed a petition asking, among other things, the court to
require Father to pay his share of that QDRO preparation cost. The court
entered several orders, including three contempt orders, and issued a civil

                                      5
                        VAN CAMP v. VAN CAMP
                          Decision of the Court

arrest warrant to motivate Father to make that $500 payment. When he
continued in his failure to pay the $500 amount, Mother filed the current
counter petition to enforce in May 2022. For these reasons, Father has not
shown the superior court erred in granting Mother’s petition to enforce.

IV.    Attorneys’ Fees on Appeal.

¶17           Mother and Father both request an award of attorneys’ fees
on appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 25-324. Having considered the financial
resources of both parties, and their positions in the litigation, in the court’s
discretion, Mother is awarded her reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred on
appeal, contingent upon her compliance with ARCAP 21. Mother is also
awarded her taxable costs on appeal contingent upon her compliance with
ARCAP 21.

                               CONCLUSION

¶18           The order is affirmed.

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

                                         6