Table of Contents
The Short Answer
A frivolous pleading in an Arizona divorce is anything filed with the court that has no factual support, is contrary to law, or both and is a ground for the court to issue sanctions for filing frivolous pleadings in an Arizona divorce case. Read the Arizona Court of Appeal memorandum decision in Kostadinova vs. Stephens for additional information on sanctions issued for filing frivolous pleadings in a divorce in Arizona.
The Long Answer
The Arizona Court of Appeals issued a memorandum decision in the case of Kostadinova vs. Stephens addressing the basis for a trial court to issue sanctions in the form of attorney fees against an attorney representing a wife in a paternity case. The following is that Court of Appeals decision.
The attorney for the other (“Counsel”) appeals the superior court’s award of attorney’s fees and costs to Mr. Stephens (“Father”) as a sanction for having unreasonably defended against Father’s request to have his address protected from disclosure. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Several months after Slava Kostadinova (“Mother”) filed her petition for paternity in March 2013, the parties reached a temporary agreement under Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure 69. The parties agreed, inter alia, to joint legal decision-making, initial parenting time, and to exchange their infant child at a police station.
No residential addresses were revealed in the agreement, although Father agreed to “exercise his parenting time primarily at his residence.” The parties agreed to communicate exclusively by email, except for texting each other’s cell phones in case of an emergency.
After the temporary agreement was entered, Mother accused Father of sexual misconduct in Texas involving his ex-wife and step-daughter. Mother alleged the incident was investigated by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (“DFPS”). A search of DFPS’s records revealed no evidence that Father had been investigated, charged, or arrested for any such abuse in Texas.
Father’s ex-wife submitted a letter, and later an affidavit, stating that Father had never abused her or her daughter. Mother then alleged Father had been arrested in Sweden for touching an under-aged girl. However, no evidence supporting the allegation was found through a record-search by Swedish authorities.
Mother hired a private investigator, who reported no criminal records for Father other than speeding tickets. In a Comprehensive Family Assessment report filed with the court in July 2015, Dr. Korsten determined Mother’s allegations were unfounded. Mother did not provide any evidence supporting her allegations, and would not change her position when presented with substantial evidence refuting them.
Sanctions for Filing a Motion Seeking Disclose of Father’s Home Address
In the spring of 2014, Father relocated his residence. Father did not disclose his new address to Mother allegedly for safety concerns for his new family. After protracted mediation, the parties reached a global Rule 69 settlement agreement in 2015, which provided: “Each parent shall notify the other of a changed address and/or phone number, within ten (10) days of such change.”
On March 4, 2016, the court-appointed Parenting Coordinator, Dr. Weinstock, recommended: “both parents share information as to where [their child] will be staying overnight during each parent’s standard parenting time.” On May 26, 2016, Counsel sent an email to Father’s counsel, in which she requested Father provide his new address to Mother.
The next day, Father’s counsel filed a motion arguing that the disclosure of Father’s home address should abide resolution in an upcoming trial. On June 20, 2016, the superior court ordered Father to disclose his address or file a request for protected address under Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure 7. On June 21, 2016, the court granted Father’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, finding the parties’ settlement agreement valid and binding as of December 28, 2015 (“2015 Settlement Agreement”).
The court ordered that Mother could file an objection to Father’s request for an award of attorney’s fees and costs based on the unreasonableness of Mother’s position by July 15, 2016.2 On July 6, 2016, Father filed for a protected address under Rule 7, stating he feared Mother would reveal his address to his former business associates, who would harm him or his new family.
In Mother’s response to the motion (“Response”), filed on July 25, 2016, Counsel argued Mother was entitled to know Father’s address and would keep Father’s address confidential. Mother did not dispute that Father’s business associates would potentially harm Father or his family if his address was disclosed to them.
Counsel stated, “Mother has done nothing vindictive in this case.” (Emphasis added.) On August 5, 2016, the court found “Mother acted unreasonably in the litigation from December 28, 2015,” because she “continued to try to impose additional terms after a binding contract was reached between the parties,” and awarded Father his reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
On August 10, 2016, the superior court granted Father’s request for a protected address and suggested Father file a memorandum on sanctioning Counsel for the Response pursuant to Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure 31 (“August Order”). After the parties briefed the issue, the court sanctioned Counsel and found her positions “objectively unreasonable” on September 28, 2016 (“September Order”).
Counsel moved for a new trial, which the court denied. The court then entered a judgment for attorney’s fees and costs against Counsel in the total amount of $5737. Counsel timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) sections 12-120.21(A)(1) and -2101(A)(1).
Counsel argues the superior court erred by (1) failing to make specific findings regarding elements necessary to sanction Counsel pursuant to Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure 31 (“Rule 31”); (2) sanctioning Counsel without holding a requested evidentiary hearing; and (3) awarding sanctions unrelated to Counsel’s Response.
We review the superior court’s rulings on a motion for sanctions for abuse of discretion, Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S.V. Holdings, L.L.C., 229 Ariz. 377, 410 (App. 2012), and “[t]he question is not whether the judges of this court would have made an original like ruling, but whether a judicial mind, in view of the law and circumstances, could have made the ruling without exceeding the bounds of reason,” Marquez v. Ortega, 231 Ariz. 437, 441 (App. 2013) (alteration in original) (quotation omitted).
A Review of Attorney Fee Sanctions in an Arizona Family Law Case
We are bound by the superior court’s findings of fact, “unless they are clearly erroneous or unsupported by any credible evidence.” Lund v. Donahoe, 227 Ariz. 572, 578–79 (App. 2011). Because Rule 31 is substantially similar to Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 11 (“Rule 11”), the legal precedents interpreting Rule 11 apply to our analysis under Rule 31. See In re Marriage of Dougall, 234 Ariz. 2, 6, n.5 (App. 2013) (“Wherever the language in [the Arizona Rules of Family Law Procedure] is substantially the same as the language in other statewide rules, the case law interpreting that language will apply to these rules.”) (alteration in original) (quoting Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 1 cmt.); see also Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 31 cmt. (Rule 31 is “based on Rule 11, Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure”).
The purpose of Rule 11, and by extension Rule 31, is “to discourage wasteful, costly litigation battles by mandatory sanctions where the position of the lawyer will not support a sound basis in law or fact justifying the position asserted.”
Wells Fargo Credit Corp. v. Smith, 166 Ariz. 489, 497 (App. 1990) (emphasis added).3 When imposing sanctions, a superior court applies an objective reasonableness standard, Cal X-Tra, 229 Ariz. at 410, of “what a professional, competent attorney would do in similar circumstances,” Linder v. Brown & Herrick, 189 Ariz. 398, 407 (App. 1997).
Counsel argues the superior court abused its discretion by failing to make specific findings regarding elements necessary to sanction Counsel under Rule 31. Regarding factual contentions, Rule 31 requires a document certified by counsel be “well grounded in fact,” while Rule 11 requires it to have “evidentiary support.” See Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 31(A); Ariz. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3).
Although we recognize these two propositions may have different meanings in some situations, we find the requirements substantially similar for the purposes of our decision and will apply legal precedent interpreting either rule. See In re Marriage of Dougall, 234 Ariz. at 6, n.5.
Both rules equally authorize the court to sanction counsel for certifying a document interposed “for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.” Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 31(A); Ariz. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(1). “The trial court must make specific findings to justify its conclusion that a party’s claims or defenses are frivolous.” Smith, 166 Ariz. at 497 (quoting State v. Richey, 160 Ariz. 564, 565 (1989)).
The reasonableness of a factual inquiry depends on the totality of the circumstances, which may change as the case progresses. See Boone v. Superior Court, 145 Ariz. 235, 241 (1985); Wright v. Hills, 161 Ariz. 583, 590 (App. 1989) (“An attorney is obligated to review and examine his [or her] position as facts of the case are developed, and . . . he [or she] may be obligated to reevaluate his [or her] earlier certification under Rule 11.”), overruled on other grounds as recognized by James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc., 177 Ariz. 316.
The superior court provided several reasons for imposing Rule 31 sanctions for Counsel’s Response. First, the court explained Counsel failed to provide any evidence, or even argue, that Father’s former business associates would not harm Father or his family if they were to learn Father’s address.
The court not only found Father satisfied the Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure 7 standard (a party reasonably believes a physical or emotional harm may result from the address’s disclosure), but also that Counsel listed these associates as witnesses against Father’s character.
Counsel’s statement that Mother promised not to disclose Father’s address to anyone was not credible given Mother’s previously taken positions and allegations. The court found Counsel violated the objective standard of a competent attorney by failing to conduct a “reasonable inquiry into the basis” for her Response. See Wolfinger v. Cheche, 206 Ariz. 504, 510 (App. 2003).
Moreover, Counsel represented to the court “Mother has done nothing vindictive in this case,” which, on this record, was a groundless, unjustified, and specious position. See James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc., 177 Ariz. at 319; see also Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 31. Second, the court explained the parties reached a detailed and specific settlement agreement in 2015, without making the disclosure of Father’s address “an essential item.” Mother presented no other reason why the parties’ agreement could not be fulfilled without her knowing Father’s address.
The court found “entirely pretextual” Mother’s claim that she was entitled to know Father’s address because it was in the best interests of their child. Moreover, the settlement agreement did not specifically address whether an address could be protected from public disclosure under Rule 7.
The court found Mother’s need to know the address mooted by the parties’ settlement agreement, and therefore Counsel’s position, objectively unreasonable. The Response caused “unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.” See Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 31; see also Boone, 145 Ariz. at 241; James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc., 177 Ariz. at 319.
To further support the imposition of sanctions, the court found: (1) Mother’s attack was personal; (2) she used an inflammatory and old police report; and (3) Mother’s filing for a bankruptcy discharge soon after Father requested Mother pay his attorney’s fees for prevailing on his motion for partial summary judgment should have prompted Counsel to act with even greater diligence and pursue only meritorious and reasonable legal positions. See Lund, 227 Ariz. at 578–79 (the superior court’s findings are binding on appeal unless clearly erroneous or unsupported by credible evidence).
The court did not fail to make specific findings. See Smith, 166 Ariz. at 497. The court’s concerns went beyond the fact that Counsel filed a response. The concern was that the content of her Response failed to comport with Rule 31. Considering the history of this case, we cannot say the court abused its discretion by sanctioning Counsel. See Marquez, 231 Ariz. at 441 (“We do not substitute our discretion for that of the trial court.”); see also Heuisler v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 168 Ariz. 278, 284 (App. 1991) (facts are viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the sanctions imposed).
An Evidentiary Hearing is Not Always Required for a Judge to Issue Sanctions
Counsel argues the superior court erred by sanctioning her pursuant to Rule 31 without first holding an evidentiary hearing, which she requested, and by making sua sponte findings unsupported by the record. “[T]he imposition of sanctions should be preceded by some form of notice and opportunity to be heard on the propriety of imposing the sanctions.” Lund, 227 Ariz. at 582 (alteration in original) (quoting Precision Components, Inc. v. Harrison, Harper, Christian & Dichter, P.C., 179 Ariz. 552, 555 (App. 1993)).
In assessing the necessity for a hearing on sanctions, the superior court evaluates: “1) the circumstances in general; 2) the type and severity of the sanctions under consideration; and 3) the judge’s participation in the proceedings, knowledge of the facts, and need for further inquiry.” Id. (quotation omitted). “In all cases . . . the accused must be given an opportunity to respond, either orally or in writing, to justify his or her actions.” Id. (quotation omitted); see also Robinson v. Higuera, 157 Ariz. 622, 624 (App. 1988) (“[d]ue process does not require that a hearing be held in every case,” even where “sanctions of dismissal or entry of default judgment” are entered); Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. v. Superior Court, 176 Ariz. 619, 622 (App. 1993) (“The heavier the sanction contemplated, the more deliberate the process that is due and the more thorough the findings that should be made.”).
In its August Order, the court invited Father’s counsel to file “a legal memorandum addressing whether Mother and/or her counsel should be sanctioned pursuant to Rule 31 . . . based upon the filing of the Response.”
Father filed a memorandum in support of sanctions, to which Mother responded in detail and submitted exhibits. Therefore, Counsel was given notice and an opportunity to be heard.
In its September order, the court considered both legal memoranda and, having “reviewed the entire Court file with respect to this matter,” denied Mother’s request for an evidentiary hearing. See Lund, 227 Ariz. at 582.
Because Rule 31 does not mandate that a hearing be conducted, the total amount of $5737 was not an excessive sanction, and the court was familiar with the case, we find Counsel was afforded due process. The court did not abuse its discretion by denying her request for an evidentiary hearing. See Marquez, 231 Ariz. at 444.
Counsel argues the superior court abused its discretion by expanding the sanction for attorney’s fees “not directly related to the sanctionable conduct” and for fees incurred before Father’s request for a protected address. “When an attorney signs a pleading in violation of [Rule 31], some form of sanction is required.”
In re $15,379 in U.S. Currency, 241 Ariz. 462, 470 (App. 2016); see also Smith, 166 Ariz. at 497 (Rule 11 sanctions are “mandatory”). Rule 31
authorizes “an appropriate sanction . . . incurred because of the filing of the pleading,” Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 31(A), which should “bear some relationship to the expenses directly caused by the sanctionable conduct,” Taliaferro, 188 Ariz. at 341. We will affirm the superior court’s discretionary award of attorney’s fees “if there is any reasonable basis for it.” Villa De Jardines Ass’n v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, 227 Ariz. 91, 99, ¶ 25 (App. 2011).
Final Ruling on Sanctions Against an Attorney in an Arizona Family Law Case
The court sanctioned Counsel in the total amount of $5737. Counsel argues that from the $5737 awarded to Father, the amount of $1087 should be subtracted because this amount was incurred before Counsel filed the sanctioned Response, and was, thus, not “incurred because of the filing” of the Response. See Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 31(A).
The $1087, however, related to Father’s effort to keep his address protected, initiated by Counsel’s email inquiry in May 2016. The court ruled the issue was mooted by the parties’ December 2015 settlement agreement and was an issue that “did not need to be litigated.” The parties initially agreed to exchange their child for parenting time at a police station.
The December 2015 settlement agreement did not indicate the arrangement to exchange the child at a location other than their homes was not functioning, and Mother did not know Father’s address at least since early 2014. It was not until May 2016 that Mother requested to know Father’s address.
The court acted within its discretion by determining the $5737 was the “appropriate sanction . . . which may include . . . expenses incurred because of the filing of the pleading . . . .” See Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 31(A) (emphasis added).
We will not substitute our discretion for that of the superior court’s, see Marquez, 231 Ariz. at 441, as the court’s sanction bears sufficient relationship to the sanctionable conduct, see Taliaferro, 188 Ariz. at 341.
Because the superior court’s sanction in the amount of $5737 is supported by the record, see Villa De Jardines Ass’n, 227 Ariz. at 99, the court did not abuse its discretion and we affirm the sanction in its entirety. Father requests we award him reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in defending this appeal pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 25-324, 12-349, and Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 25. In our discretion, we award Father his reasonable attorney’s fees and costs upon compliance with Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 21. For the stated reasons, we affirm.
If you have questions about sanctions for filing documents 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 Laws 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
- HOW TO TELL IF YOUR SPOUSE IS HIDING ASSETS 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
- FINDING THE RIGHT DIVORCE ATTORNEY: SECURE THE BEST REPRESENTATION FOR YOUR CASE
- 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
- STOP AN ARIZONA DIVORCE
- 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
- 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
- BLAMING YOUR DIVORCE ATTORNEY CAN WAIVE THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE
- 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