Williams v. Williams – 10/6/2011

October 11, 2011

Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That a Post-Judgment Order Is Not Appealable if It Is Merely Preparatory to Another Later Order or Proceeding and Has No Immediate Effect on the Parties’ Rights and Responsibilities.

Father and Mother dissolved their marriage by a decree of dissolution that awarded them joint custody of their four children and provided that Father would pay $9,500 per month in spousal maintenance for 36 months and $1,000 per month in child support.  In 2007, Father filed a petition to modify custody and support.  In March 2008, Mother filed a petition to modify spousal maintenance.  The trial court consolidated both petitions for hearing.  In January 2009, the court entered an order setting forth its findings of fact relating to both petitions.  That order modified spousal maintenance by requiring Father to pay Mother $4,750 per month beginning in January 2009.  The order, however, did not set forth the amount for child support payments, nor did it resolve a dispute over past child support payments.  Father appealed the January 2009 order, as well as an April 7, 2009 order denying various post-hearing motions.  In September 2009, the court entered a Child Support Order requiring Father to pay Mother $505 per month.  In November 2009, the court entered a judgment resolving the dispute over past child support payments.  Father did not appeal either the September 2009 order or the judgment.

The Arizona Appeals Court affirmed in part and dismissed in part.  The Court first dismissed Father’s claims related to child support for lacked jurisdiction because he did not appeal the September 2009 order or the November 2009 judgment.  The Court explained that the January 2009 and April 2009 orders were not appealable under A.R.S. § 12-2101 because they did not “dispose[] of or settle[] ultimate rights.”  Citing Arvizu v. Fernandez, 183 Ariz. 224, 902 P.2d 830 (App. 1995), the Court explained that a post-judgment order is appealable under A.R.S. § 12-2101(C) only if it (1) raises different issues than would be raised in an appeal from the underlying decree, and (2) must affect the judgment or relate to its enforcement. 

Although the January and April 2009 orders addressed issues different than the underlying divorce decree, they did not affect the judgment or relate to its enforcement because they were “merely preparatory” to another order or proceeding.  The Court explained that the January 2009 and April 2009 orders were merely preparatory to the September 2009 order and November 2009 judgment because they did not alter Father’s legal rights or responsibilities.

The Court, however, held that the January 2009 order was appealable as to spousal maintenance because that order clearly involved different legal issues than the decree of dissolution, and had an immediate effect on the judgment without the need for future proceedings or orders.  The Court rejected Mother’s argument that the January 2009 order was not appealable because the child support issues remained unresolved until much later, explaining that all distinct petitions in a post-dissolution proceeding need not be resolved before an order resolving one of them becomes appealable.  Because the January 2009 order completely disposed of the spousal maintenance petition, it was appealable. 

Presiding Judge Kessler authored the opinion; Judges Barker and Thompson concurred.