Attorney Fees in an Arizona Divorce
In Arizona, the family court is allowed to award attorneys’ fees after it considers the financial resources of both parties and the reasonableness of their positions during the divorce proceedings. The unpublished case of Flynn v. Rodrick leaves the Court of Appeals of Arizona considering whether both a disparity in financial resources and an unreasonable opponent are required in order for the court to award attorneys’ fees in an Arizona Divorce.
A Brief History of the Case: Lois Ann Flynn v. Charles David Rodrick
Lois Ann Flynn (Wife) filed a petition for divorce in 2011. A trial was held in May 2013 after a number of pretrial motions and discovery disputes occurred during the case. The Decree of Dissolution of Marriage was entered in December 2013. In the divorce decree, Wife was awarded child support, the marital assets and debts were divided, and Wife was awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs based on the disparity in financial resources because Charles David Rodrick (Husband) had considerably more resources available to contribute towards attorneys’ fees and costs.
The award was based upon the disparity in the financial resources available to each spouse. Wife was ordered to provide requested documentation in support of an application for a partial award of attorney fees and costs by December 9, 2013, including the required China Doll Affidavit and a form of order for the judge to sign. Father was ordered to file written objections by December 23, 2013. Upon review of the documentation and objections, the Court determined the amount of the award. Ultimately, the Court entered a judgment in favor of Wife for $50,000 in attorney fees and costs plus interest and Husband appealed in a timely manner.
In Discussion of the Proceedings: Financial Disparity and Unreasonable Positioning
Husband argued that the Family Court abused its discretion in this case when it granted the attorney fee and cost award to Wife of attorney’s fees and costs to Wife. Arizona Revised Statute Section 25-324(A) provides that Family Court with the ability to award attorney’s fees once after it considers the financial resources of both parties, as well as the reasonableness of their positions during the court proceedings.
Some prior case law held that the reasonableness of the parties positions and the parties’ financial resources are two separate considerations. The separation of the two led to the conclusion that an applicant for an award of attorney’s fees is not required to show both a financial disparity and an unreasonable position held by their opponent in order to be awarded attorney fees in an Arizona divorce case.
The Arizona Court of Appeals reviewed the award for an abuse of discretion. In order for the Court to find an abuse of discretion, there must either be no evidence supporting the conclusions of the Family Court or the reasons offered must be legally incorrect, clearly untenable, or represent an obvious denial of justice. When there is no request for findings and specific findings of fact are specified by the Family Court, the Arizona Court of Appeals must assume that the Divorce Court considered relevant factors, found all necessary facts to support the ruling and must affirm so long as there is any reasonable construction of evidence that supports the decision.
Determining an Abuse of Discretion
The Family Court concluded that there existed between the two parties a financial disparity warranting an award of attorney’s fees and costs to Wife. Husband claims that the record does not support the Family Court’s findings, and in support of his argument that there was an abuse of discretion, he cites his own testimony. Yet Husband failed to provide the Court of Appeals with a transcript of the trial. The Appellant is responsible for providing records, transcripts, documentation, etc. necessary for the Arizona Court of Appeals to consider the issued being raised. When a party fails to do so, the Court assumes the record at trial would support the court’s findings and/or conclusions. Therefore, the Arizona Court of Appeals found that the Family Court did not abuse its discretion when awarding Wife attorney’s fees and costs.
Determining a Reasonable Position
The husband in Flynn v. Rodrick argues on appeal that Wife’s application for attorney’s fees is unreasonable. After reviewing the Husband’s brief, the Court understands his argument to be that the billing statement was lacking in detail, that the billing rate was too high, and hours were over-billed. The Court disagrees with Husband’s arguments and finds Wife’s application for attorney’s fees and costs to be reasonable. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the Family Court’s Judgment and Award of Attorney’s Fees and Costs.