The Arizona Court of Appeals in the memorandum decision issued in the case of Bohac vs. Wiese had to address the issue of whether a spouse waived his attorney-client privilege when the clients blame his own lawyer for entering into a Rule 69 settlement agreement in an Arizona divorce case.
The father appeals the family court’s order concerning the division of legal decision-making authority, parenting time, and child support between himself and the mother over their minor child. For the following reasons, we affirm the court’s order.
Father and Mother were married in December 2010. They had one child (“Child”) together in April 2012. In June 2013, the parties were divorced in Nebraska. The decree of dissolution of marriage incorporated a parenting plan giving Mother legal and primary physical custody of Child, subject to Father’s reasonable rights of parenting time, and outlined the parties’ respective child support obligations.
In December 2013, the Nebraska district court granted Mother’s request to modify the decree, authorizing her to move to Arizona with their child. The Nebraska court’s modification order also made several changes regarding child support, a contribution for childcare expenses, and health insurance for the child, but otherwise maintained the parenting plan and custody arrangement of the original decree.
In April 2015, Father filed a petition to modify legal decision-making, parenting time, and child support in the Arizona superior court. In his petition, Father requested joint legal decision-making authority and equal parenting time, indicating he was in the process of also moving to Arizona.
Mother filed her response to Father’s petition to modify, denying that she “was awarded legal and physical custody based solely on Father’s location” and affirmatively alleging that “Father agreed to it”. The Honorable Patricia A. Orozco, retired Judge of the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, has been authorized to sit in this matter pursuant to Article VI, Section 3 of the Arizona Constitution.
The mother noted that she had “concerns with Father’s ability to properly care for the child, including “Father’s past issues with anger management and Father’s previous failure to cooperate with Mother and adhere to the terms of the parties’ parenting plan.” She alleged it would be in the best interests of the child to gradually and incrementally increase Father’s parenting time with supervision.
In July 2015, Mother and Father participated in a Resolution Management Conference. The family court set a telephonic status conference for October 2015 and ordered the parties to participate in private mediation before then.
Approximately one month later, however, Father’s counsel filed an application to withdraw, with Father’s consent, which the court granted. At the October status conference, the court granted the parties’ request to extend the mediation deadline.
The parties participated in private mediation in November 2015 but did not reach a resolution. Father’s behavior during mediation resulted in Mother obtaining an order of protection against Father, which Father admitted was for disturbing the peace.
Soon after, Father hired his second attorney, Michael Albee. In a letter dated November 30, 2015, Father—through his new attorney—proposed a settlement offer regarding legal decision-making authority, a graduated parenting time schedule, and child support matters.
Albee and Mother’s attorney then exchanged a series of emails negotiating the potential terms of a settlement, including the condition that Father obtains professional counseling. The last disputed provision of Mother’s final settlement offer was sent by email to Albee on February 26, 2016.
Albee replied by email the same day, stating, “My client accepts the terms of the agreement.” In March 2016, the parties jointly submitted a notice of settlement to the family court and moved to vacate the impending trial. The parties asked the court for a deadline of May 15 for submitting a stipulated order and parenting plan, which the family court granted.
In April, Mother’s attorney sent Father’s attorney Albee the first draft of a stipulated order documenting the terms of their ultimate agreement. Father then sent an email directly to Mother, insisting that the “current parenting plan is still valid until the ‘agreed upon’ parenting plan is signed and approved.”
In late April 2016, Michael Albee filed his application to withdraw as Father’s attorney, which the family court granted in May. Thereafter, Father corresponded directly with Mother’s counsel and repeatedly insisted that no settlement agreement had ever been reached. Father filed a notice of non-settlement and motion to set a hearing, identifying the issues outlined in his April 2015 petition to modify the issues before the court.
In her response, Mother argued that they had already entered into an agreement that was binding under Rule 69 of the Arizona Rules of Family Law Procedure. She requested a one-hour evidentiary hearing on the Rule 69 agreement. The family court held an evidentiary hearing on October 19, 2016, to determine the validity of the parties’ agreement under Rule 69.
At the hearing, Father testified that his former attorney Albee was “inept,” and unable to “exhibit the professional knowledge to properly domesticate our foreign orders,” and that he “fraudulently induced” Mother’s counsel and Father into a Rule 69 agreement. The court found, based on Father’s allegations, that he had opened the door to his communications with his attorney regarding the settlement agreement. The court allowed testimony from Albee on this limited issue.
In turn, Albee testified that he had communicated the terms of each settlement offer to Father and received Father’s approval for each negotiated provision before responding. Albee further testified that the terms outlined in the order lodged with the family court were consistent with the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement.
The family court found the evidence from the letters and emails exchanged between the parties’ counsel made it clear that the parties had reached a binding settlement agreement under Rule 69. The court further found the settlement agreement was in the child’s best interests, and entered an order executing its terms. The court also granted Mother’s request for attorney fees and costs.
Father appears to present a number of arguments in support of his request that this court vacate the family court’s order:
(1) he never entered into a binding settlement agreement with Mother;
(2) the final order is not in Child’s best interests;
(3) he did not waive his attorney-client privilege and his former attorney Albee should not have been allowed to testify about their communications regarding the alleged settlement agreement; and
(4) he was denied due process when the family court rejected his request to question Mother’s attorney.
We do not find the arguments persuasive and therefore affirm the family court’s order.
In his opening brief, Father repeatedly challenges the validity of the final settlement agreement. Rule 69 states that an agreement between the parties “shall be valid and binding if . . . the agreement is in writing.” Ariz. R. Fam. Law. P. 69(A), -(A)(1).
Any such agreement entered into by the parties “shall be presumed to be valid and binding, and it shall be the burden of the party challenging the validity of the agreement to prove any defect in the agreement.” Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 69(B).
Interpretations of procedural rules, including Rule 69, are reviewed de novo. Ames v. Ames, 239 Ariz. 246, 249 (App. 2016). Here, after a back-and-forth email exchange between the parties’ counsel negotiating the particular terms, Albee sent Mother’s counsel an email in February 2016 stating that “[m]y client accepts the terms of the agreement.”
Although Father maintains that he would never have agreed to the specific terms ultimately defined in the family court’s order, Albee testified otherwise.
At the evidentiary hearing, Mother’s counsel elicited the following testimony from Albee: Q. . . . After the order of protection hearing, did you author a series of communications to my office in an effort to settle this matter? A. Yes. . . . Q. . . . In the first line of the letter you state, “I have spoken with [Father] and he has authorized me to propose a new settlement offer regarding all contested issues.”
Rule 69 was adapted from Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 80(d); in interpreting the Family Rule, Arizona courts may, therefore, look to cases interpreting the Civil Rule. See Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 69 comm. cmt; Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 1 comm. cmt (“Wherever the language in these rules is substantially the same as the language in other statewide rules, the case law interpreting that language will apply to these rules.”) . . . Q. Was that a true statement? A. That was a true statement. Q. Is that still a true statement? A. That’s still a true statement. . . . Q. . . . In your practice of law, do you communicate settlement offers to clients to make sure they give approval before sending them out? A. Every single time. Q. And you did so in this case? A. I did. . . . Q. . . . Each and every negotiation and all those letters admitted as exhibits, did you discuss with [Father] each and every one of those negotiations? A. Yes, I did. Q. And did Father agree to the final terms of that Rule 69 agreement? A. Yes, he did. As the family court noted, “the evidence is clear from the letters and emails between counsel for both parties that an agreement was reached.” The court also determined that “the credible evidence is that Father agreed to the final settlement between the parties” and “Father’s statements to the contrary are simply buyer’s remorse.”
An email between the parties’ attorneys may serve to satisfy Rule 69’s prescription that agreements shall be valid and binding if in writing. See Robertson v. Alling, 237 Ariz. 345, 348, (2015) (“[I]f Rule 80(d) applies, the attorneys’ exchange of emails satisfied the rule.
Nothing requires clients to separately assent in writing to a written agreement brokered by their attorney. . . . Our courts have long recognized that attorneys can bind clients who have cloaked them with apparent authority to act on their behalf.”.
Father’s assent to the settlement agreement is further evidenced by Mother and Father’s joint submission of a notice of settlement stipulating that the parties “have settled all matters currently before this Honorable Court.” We, therefore, deny Father’s request to vacate the family court’s order executing the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement.
Father also argues that the settlement agreement was not binding because he did not personally sign it. At a hearing in February 2016, the family court made a note in its minute entry: Counsel and the parties are reminded of their obligation to give prompt notice of any settlement to the Court as required by Rule 70, Arizona Rules of Family Law Procedure.
Should the parties reach a full agreement prior to the date of the hearing, the Court will consider a motion to vacate the hearing. Father contends this was an “order” from the family court requiring that any settlement agreement between the parties would need to be signed and submitted to the court in full before it would be considered binding.
The family court, however, does not have the power to add or subtract to the requirements of Rule 69; the above caution to the parties did not prevent Mother and Father’s emailed settlement agreement from becoming binding merely because they had not personally signed it. See Anderson v. Pickrell, 115 Ariz. 589, 590 (1977) (the Arizona Supreme Court has the constitutional authority to make procedural rules, and “[t]his power may not be supplemented, annulled or superseded by an inferior court”).
Rather, the family court was informing the parties of what the court would prefer to see before it exercised its discretion to vacate the trial—but it was also within the family court’s discretion to then elect to vacate the trial even without seeing a signed stipulated agreement. See Findlay v. Lewis, 172 Ariz. 343, 346 (1992) (a trial court has “broad discretion over the management of its docket” and appellate courts “do not substitute their judgment for that of the trial court in the day-to-day management of cases”).
Father challenges the family court’s finding that the terms of the settlement agreement were in the child’s best interests, asserting that reducing his parenting time, increasing his child support obligations, and adding counseling services he cannot afford are not in his Child’s best interests.
“The court shall determine legal decision-making and parenting time, either originally or on a petition for modification, in accordance with the best interests of the child. The court shall consider all factors that are relevant to the child’s physical and emotional well-being . . . .” Ariz. Rev. Stat. (“A.R.S.”) § 25-403(A). A family court’s determination of whether a Rule 69 agreement is in the best interests of a minor child is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See Nold v. Nold, 232 Ariz. 270, 273, ¶ 11 (App. 2013).
During the evidentiary hearing, Mother provided the following testimony: Q. Do you believe that this agreement is in the best interest of [Child]? A. Yes. I believe it’s in the best interest of [Child.] I feel that I want him to have a relationship with his father, but knowing the past and even going back to when we had the restraining order, I believe moving forward with him getting help would be good for [Child] and his future, but I would like to see the help. . . . Q. Did you incorporate by reference, in the interest of time, the analysis of [the A.R.S. § 25-403(A) best-interests] factors as set forth in your pretrial statement? A. Yes.
Father presented no evidence concerning the best-interests factors outlined in A.R.S. § 25-403(A); he gave only conclusory testimony that the settlement agreement is “against the best interest of my minor child.” Given the ample evidence Mother provided at the hearing, the family court did not abuse its discretion by ruling that the terms of the agreement were in the child’s best interests.
Father contends the family court erred by ruling Father had opened the door to his communications with Albee regarding the settlement agreement, arguing Albee should not have been allowed to testify.
“The attorney-client privilege safeguards the communication between the attorney and client made in the course of the attorney’s professional employment.” Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A. v. Myers, 237 Ariz. 369, 374, (App. 2015).
The client is the holder of the privilege, id., and “[i]n a civil action an attorney shall not, without the consent of his client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him, or his advice given thereon in the course of professional employment,” A.R.S. § 12-2234(A).
While a client’s waiver of privilege is usually explicit, it may also be implied. Burch, 237 Ariz. at 374, ¶ 17. “Implied waiver can occur where a party advances a claim or affirmative defense premised upon the otherwise privileged information . . . .” Id. at 375; see also Accomazzo v. Kemp, ex rel. Cty. of Maricopa, 234 Ariz. 169, 172, (“When a party affirmatively places privileged communications at issue, it waives the attorney-client privilege.”) (citation omitted).
Whether a party has impliedly waived the attorney-client privilege is a mixed question of law and fact that we review de novo. Burch, 237 Ariz. at 374. During the evidentiary hearing, Father questioned Albee’s “dedication” and testified that Albee was “inept” and “unable to exhibit the professional knowledge” necessary to domesticate foreign orders in the case. Father further testified that Albee had fraudulently induced him to enter into the final agreement.
The trial court found, “based on [Father’s] testimony and his allegation that his attorney was inept and that he was somehow fraudulently induced into a Rule 69 agreement, that Father had, in fact, waived his attorney-client privilege” regarding the Rule 69 agreement negotiations.
The court, therefore, permitted Mother to call Albee as a witness, and also gave Father the opportunity to cross-examine him. By calling his former attorney’s conduct into question and claiming to have been fraudulently induced into settling, Father affirmatively placed otherwise privileged information directly at issue.
The family court properly found that Father had opened the door to his communications with his former attorney regarding the final settlement agreement. See Elia v. Pifer, 194 Ariz. 74, 81 (App. 1998) (where the client’s theory of the case was partly that he had not agreed to settle his dissolution matter, he was not “entitled to preclude evidence relevant to these matters by asserting the attorney-client privilege”).
Father argues that it was a violation of due process for the family court to deny his request to call Mother’s attorney as a witness at the evidentiary hearing. Father contends that, because the court allowed his former attorney to testify regarding their communications during the settlement negotiations, Mother’s attorney became a vital witness as the only other person able to testify about those communications.
Due process entitles a party to an opportunity to be heard, to offer evidence, and to confront adverse witnesses. Curtis v. Richardson, 212 Ariz. 308, 312 (App. 2006). Only after the family court determined Father had opened the door to having his former attorney Albee questioned did it allow limited testimony about the settlement negotiations.
Father was not entitled to call Mother’s attorney as a witness, as Mother had done nothing to waive her own attorney-client privileged communications. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm. Mother requests an award of attorney fees and costs pursuant to A.R.S. § 25–324.
In our discretion, we award Mother an amount of reasonable attorney fees and costs to be determined upon compliance with Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 21.
If you have questions about waiving attorney-client privilege in an Arizona divorce case, you should seriously consider contacting the attorneys at Hildebrand Law, PC. Our Arizona divorce and family law attorneys have over 100 years of combined experience successfully representing clients in divorce and family law cases.
Our family law firm has earned numerous awards such as US News and World Reports Best Arizona Family Law Firm, US News and World Report Best Divorce Attorneys, “Best of the Valley” by Arizona Foothills readers, and “Best Arizona Divorce Law Firms” by North Scottsdale Magazine.
Call us today at (480)305-8300 or reach out to us through our appointment scheduling form to schedule your personalized consultation and turn your Arizona divorce or family law case around today.
More Articles About Divorce in Arizona
- PHANTOM INCOME IN A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- BUYING A HOUSE DURING A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- INTERNATIONAL DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- PROTECT YOURSELF DURING A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- MOVING OUT OF THE HOUSE DURING A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- ASKING YOUR SPOUSE FOR A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- WHAT HAPPENS TO EMBRYOS IN A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- WHAT SHOULD I DO BEFORE FILING FOR DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- HOW SHOULD A MAN PREPARE FOR DIVORCE
- LATE DISCLOSURE OF EXPERT WITNESS REPORTS IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE
- CAN YOU SELL PROPERTY BEFORE A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- HOW TO ASK YOUR SPOUSE FOR A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- HOW DIVORCE CAN IMPACT SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS
- IS IT SMART TO BUY A HOUSE AFTER A DIVORCE
- WHEN A DIVORCE IS FINAL IN ARIZONA
- EFFECT OF CHANGING JUDGES DURING A DIVORCE
- FAILURE TO SIGN VERIFICATION OF DIVORCE FORM IN ARIZONA
- ENFORCING A PROMISE IN A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- SELLING A HOUSE DURING A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- DIVORCING A NARCISSIST IN ARIZONA
- CAN A JUDGE REJECT A DIVORCE SETTLEMENT IN ARIZONA
- NARCISSIST DIVORCE ADVICE IN ARIZONA
- HOW TO WORK EFFECTIVELY WITH AN ATTORNEY WHEN YOU DIVORCE A NARCISSIST
- DIVORCE TIPS IN ARIZONA
- DIVIDING CONTINGENCY FEES IN A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- TIPS ON HIRING A DIVORCE LAWYER
- AWARD OF MONEY IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE
- DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A COMPLETE AND PARTIAL DIVORCE AGREEMENT
- WHAT TO DO IF YOUR SPOUSE IS HIDING ASSETS IN A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- INTEREST ON A JUDGMENT IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE
- INTEREST ON A JUDGMENT IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE DECREE
- MISSED COURT DATE IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE
- WHAT HAPPENS IF SOMEONE LIES IN A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- VALUING A HOUSE DURING A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- TRAUMATIC STRESS AND DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- TAXES AND DIVORCE SETTLEMENTS IN ARIZONA
- STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON A DIVORCE DECREE IN ARIZONA
- AUTHORITY OF DIVORCE COURTS TO REQUIRE A RELIGIOUS DIVORCE
- FAILURE TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF THE VALUE OF PROPERTY IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE
- VALUING A PENSION PLAN IN A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- ENFORCING A PREMARITAL AGREEMENT IN A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- CHANGING POSITIONS DURING A DIVORCE TRIAL IN ARIZONA
- FALSE ACCUSATIONS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE
- DENIAL OF SPOUSAL SUPPORT AS A SANCTION IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE
- VALIDITY OF A MARRIAGE IN ARIZONA WHEN THE MARRIAGE LICENSE IS NOT FILED
- WAIVER OF DIVORCE MEDIATION CONFIDENTIALITY IN ARIZONA
- GUIDE TO DIVORCE FOR MEN
- WHAT TO DO WHEN SERVED WITH DIVORCE PAPERS
- WHAT SHOULD I DO BEFORE FILING DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- WHAT REASONS DO I NEED TO OBTAIN A DIVORCE IN A COVENANT MARRIAGE IN ARIZONA
- WHAT IS A TEMPORARY ORDERS HEARING IN ARIZONA
- WHAT IS A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE
- WHAT IS A FAMILY LAW MASTER IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE CASE
- WHAT IS A DEFAULT DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- THE DEFINITIVE GUIDE TO THE 8 STEPS OF THE ARIZONA DIVORCE PROCESS
- WHAT IS A COVENANT MARRIAGE IN ARIZONA
- WHAT HAPPENS IF MY DIVORCE CASE GOES TO TRIAL IN ARIZONA
- WHAT HAPPENS AT A TEMPORARY ORDERS HEARING IN ARIZONA
- WHAT HAPPENS AT A RESOLUTION MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE IN ARIZONA
- WHAT DOES IT MEAN WHEN YOUR DIVORCE CASE IS ON THE INACTIVE CALENDAR
- HOW TO TELL IF YOUR SPOUSE IS HIDING ASSETS IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE
- STOP AN ARIZONA DIVORCE
- FINDING THE RIGHT DIVORCE ATTORNEY: SECURE THE BEST REPRESENTATION FOR YOUR CASE
- SOCIAL MEDIA EVIDENCE IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE
- SHOULD I KEEP THE HOUSE IN A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- 7 DOCUMENTS YOU NEED TO FILE FOR DIVORCE ARIZONA
- SERVING DIVORCE PAPERS BY PUBLICATION IN ARIZONA
- WHAT DO I DO IF I AM SERVED WITH DIVORCE PAPERS
- SELLING COMMUNITY PROPERTY DURING A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- SEALING COURT RECORDS IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE
- RUNNING OUT OF TIME DURING A FAMILY LAW TRIAL IN ARIZONA
- REASONS TO FILE FOR DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- QUICK DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- PARENTING CLASS DURING A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- WHAT IS A NO FAULT DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- MODIFYING A DIVORCE DECREE IN ARIZONA
- MISLED INTO SIGNING A DIVORCE SETTLEMENT IN ARIZONA
- MERGER OR INCORPORATION OF A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN ARIZONA
- MARITAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS IN ARIZONA
- UNCONTESTED DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- HOW TO OBTAIN A DIVORCE AFTER A LEGAL SEPARATION IN ARIZONA
- HOW TO GET AN AMICABLE DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- SAME SEX DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- UNREASONABLE DELAY IN CONTESTING PATERNITY IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE
- HOW TO GET A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA WHEN YOU CANNOT FIND OR LOCATE YOUR SPOUSE
- HOW DO I FIND A GOOD DIVORCE ATTORNEY IN ARIZONA
- HOW TO APPEAL A DIVORCE DECREE IN ARIZONA
- HOW MUCH DOES A DIVORCE COST IN ARIZONA
- HOW LONG DOES AN UNCONTESTED DIVORCE TAKE IN ARIZONA
- HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO GET TEMPORARY ORDERS IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE CASE
- HOW LONG DOES A CONTESTED DIVORCE CASE TAKE IN ARIZONA
- HOW LONG DO YOU HAVE TO BE SEPARATED BEFORE DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- HOW IS A DIVORCE FINALIZED IN ARIZONA
- HIGH NET WORTH DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- HIGH CONFLICT DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- HIGH ASSET DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- FAILURE TO INCLUDE AN ISSUE IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE
- DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- DO ARIZONA COURTS OFFER SERVICES TO SAVE A MARRIAGE
- DIVORCE STATISTICS IN ARIZONA
- DIVORCE IN ARIZONA WITHOUT CHILDREN
- DIVORCE COURT JURISDICTION ARISES FROM STATUTES IN ARIZONA
- DIVORCE AND CHILDREN IN ARIZONA
- DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE IN ARIZONA: STEPS TO DISSOLVE A MARRIAGE
- DISMISSAL OF AN APPEAL FOR NOT OBEYING ORDERS IN A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- CUSTODY OF THE FAMILY PET IN A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- COPING WITH DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- CAN I CONVERT MY MARRIAGE TO A COVENANT MARRIAGE
- CONCILIATION COURT SERVICES IN ARIZONA
- COMPLEX DIVORCE CASES IN ARIZONA
- COLLEGE EXPENSES AFTER DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- CHANGE TO MAIDEN NAME AFTER DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- CAN MY SPOUSE BE ORDERED TO PAY MY ATTORNEY FEES
- CAN I STOP A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA IF I CHANGE MY MIND
- CAN I REPRESENT MYSELF IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE CASE
- ARIZONA MILITARY DIVORCE LAWS: THE 10/10 RULE, FINANCIAL SUPPORT AND MORE
- ARIZONA DIVORCE DEBT
- ARE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENTS ENFORCEABLE IN ARIZONA
- EFFECTS OF DIVORCE ON CHILDREN
- ADVANTAGE OF FILING FOR DIVORCE FIRST IN ARIZONA
- WHAT IS ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN ARIZONA
- FIVE THINGS TO DO TO PREPARE FOR DIVORCE MEDIATION IN ARIZONA
- APPEALING AN ARBITRATION AWARD IN A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- EIGHT WAYS YOUR SPOUSE CAN HIDE THEIR INCOME BEFORE DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- FAILURE TO INCLUDE AN ISSUE IN A PRETRIAL STATEMENT IN ARIZONA
- THE VALUATION OF A LAW PRACTICE IN A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- OPENING BRIEF IN AN ARIZONA FAMILY LAW APPEAL
- WHEN IS MEDIATION A GOOD IDEA
- MENTAL ILLNESS AND THE FAMILY COURT SYSTEM IN ARIZONA
- DIVORCE IN ARIZONA: SIX THINGS TO KNOW ABOUT A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- WHAT DOCTORS SHOULD KNOW ABOUT DIVIDING ASSETS IN A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- WHAT IS A RULE 69 AGREEMENT IN ARIZONA
- UPDATING YOUR ESTATE PLAN FOLLOWING A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- THE RISING TREND OF GREY DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- THE DEFINITIVE GUIDE TO DEALING WITH A SURPRISE DIVORCE
- WHAT TO DO IF YOUR WIFE OR HUSBAND WANTS A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- EIGHT FINANCIAL MISTAKES TO AVOID WHEN GOING THROUGH A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- REIMBURSEMENT FOR PAYING COMMUNITY BILLS IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE
- EFFECT OF FILING AN AFFIDAVIT OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION WITH THE COURT IN ARIZONA
- DIVORCE SUCKS: DECIDING TO DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- DOMICILE AND RESIDENCY RULES IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE
- SERVICE BY EMAIL IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE
- LODGING A CONSENT DECREE IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE
- SANCTIONS FOR FILING FRIVOLOUS DOCUMENTS IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE
- FILING A LATE APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEY FEES IN AN ARIZONA FAMILY LAW CASE
- DISMISSAL OF AN INTERNATIONAL DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- REQUEST TO CONTINUE A DIVORCE TRIAL IN ARIZONA TO RETAIN AN ATTORNEY
- WHEN DIVORCE IS THE RIGHT CHOICE IN ARIZONA
- IS DIVORCE THE BEST OPTION IN ARIZONA
- WHEN YOU SHOULD FILE FOR BANKRUPTCY BEFORE A DIVORCE
- HOW TO PRESERVE CLAIMS FOR AN ARIZONA FAMILY LAW APPEAL
- MANDATORY SANCTIONS IN AN ARIZONA FAMILY LAW CASE
- JUDGE FAILING TO RULE ON A DIVORCE ISSUE IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE
- HOW TO FIX AN ERROR IN A FAMILY LAW CASE IN ARIZONA
- LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE IN A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- HEARING TO CONTEST A RULE 69 AGREEMENT IN ARIZONA
- CORRECTING A MISTAKE IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE DECREE
- CHANGING ATTORNEYS DURING A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- THE EFFECT OF THE 2017 TAX BILL ON DIVORCE
- SAVE MONEY ON DIVORCE ATTORNEY FEES IN ARIZONA
- QUESTIONS TO ASK A DIVORCE LAWYER IN ARIZONA
- OPTIONS FOR BUSINESS OWNERS GOING THROUGH A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- WHAT TO DO DURING A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- COLLECTING ATTORNEY FEES ON A JUDGMENT IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE
- FOR THE NEWLY DIVORCED
- DIVORCING A DRUG ADDICT IN ARIZONA
- DIVORCING AN ALCOHOLIC IN ARIZONA
- DUTY OF CANDOR IN A DEFAULT DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- SETTING ASIDE OR MODIFYING A DIVORCE DECREE IN ARIZONA
- IMPORTANCE OF CONSULTING A FINANCIAL PLANNER BEFORE A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- SOMATIC SYMPTOM DISORDER IN A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- DEALING WITH A LIAR IN A DIVORCE
- PARANOID PERSONALITY DISORDER IN A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- PERSONALITY DISORDERS IN A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- DISSOCIATIVE DISORDER AND DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- OBSESSIVE COMPULSIVE PERSONALITY DISORDER AND DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- COPING WITH ANXIETY DURING A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- DIVORCING A DEPRESSED SPOUSE IN ARIZONA
- DIVORCING A PSYCHOPATH IN ARIZONA
- DIVORCING SOMEONE WITH A MENTAL ILLNESS IN ARIZONA
- DIVORCING A BIPOLAR SPOUSE IN ARIZONA
- PROBLEMS WITH AGGRESSIVE DIVORCE LAWYERS IN ARIZONA
- HOW TO DEAL WITH AN AGGRESSIVE DIVORCE LAWYER IN ARIZONA
- DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AN ANNULMENT AND DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- WHEN MEDIATION IS A BAD IDEA
- SITUATIONS BEST FOR DIVORCE MEDIATION IN ARIZONA
- ALTERNATIVES TO DIVORCE AND LEGAL SEPARATION IN ARIZONA
- CONTESTED VERSUS UNCONTESTED DIVORCES IN ARIZONA
- ATTORNEY’S CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE
- TIME LIMIT TO ENFORCE A DIVORCE DECREE IN ARIZONA
- SANCTIONS AGAINST AN ATTORNEY FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE IN ARIZONA
- ESTABLISHING EXTRINSIC FRAUD IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE
- UNENFORCEABLE PROVISIONS IN A MARITAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
- CORROBORATION REQUIRED IN AN ARIZONA FAULT DIVORCE
- ENFORCING AN UNSIGNED DIVORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
- CHANGING JUDGES IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE
- JURISDICTION OVER PROCEDURAL ISSUES IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE
- APPEALING TEMPORARY ORDERS IN ARIZONA
- HOW TO DEAL WITH A HOSTILE PARENT IN ARIZONA
- SANCTIONS FOR FILING A MOTION TO COMPEL LATE DISCOVERY IN ARIZONA
- DISQUALIFICATION OF AN ATTORNEY IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE
- FAILURE TO FILE A MARRIAGE LICENSE IN ARIZONA
- LATE DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE CASE
- PROTECTING CHILDREN FROM A HOSTILE PARENT DURING A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- HOW DIVORCE AFFECTS CHILDREN IN ARIZONA
- ARIZONA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION MUST RECOGNIZE A COURT’S RULING ON MARITAL STATUS
- DOES DEATH OF A SPOUSE PREVENT A JUDGE FROM ISSUING A DIVORCE DECREE IN ARIZONA
- HOW PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS CAN AFFECT YOUR MARITAL RELATIONSHIP
- RATIFICATION OF A VOIDABLE MARRIAGE IN ARIZONA
- HOW TO PREPARE FOR DIVORCE MEDIATION IN ARIZONA
- WHY MEDIATE YOUR DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- ARIZONA DIVORCE LAW FAQ
- COLLABORATIVE DIVORCE: EXPLORING THE BENEFITS OF COLLABORATIVE DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
- CHANGE OF JUDGE AFTER A SPECIAL ACTION APPEAL IN ARIZONA
- DIVORCE MEDIATION IN ARIZONA: HOW TO SIMPLIFY YOUR DIVORCE
- ARIZONA RULE OF FAMILY LAW PROCEDURE 2B
- ARIZONA ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE LAWS