Statute of Limitations on a Divorce Decree in Arizona
Posted on : October 23, 2017, By: Christopher Hildebrand
Statute of Limitations on a Divorce Decree in Arizona
In December of 2016, the Arizona Court of Appeals-Division One reviewed and rendered a decision in Jensen v. Beirne. Judge Jon W. Thompson delivered the opinion for the Court, in which Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen and Judge Edward W. Bassett joined.
The marriage of Mr. Beirne (Beirne) and Mrs. Jensen (Jensen) was dissolved by a divorce decree in June 2005. The Arizona divorce decree granted and dispersed several properties between the two parties. Two of the properties were deemed community property but awarded to Beirne as his separate property, and are the subjects of this appeal.
One property is located in Scottsdale, Arizona, while the second property is in England, United Kingdom. The decree ordered Beirne to refinance the mortgages on the two properties in his name within 90 days. He failed to do so.
Statute of Limitations on a Divorce Decree in Arizona.
According to the June 2005 decree, if Beirne was unable to refinance the properties then they were to be placed on the market for sale. In the event of a sale, Jensen had “first right of refusal” to purchase them for their fair market value.
Due to Beirne’s failure to refinance the mortgages, in December 2005 the court allowed Jensen to place both properties for sale. In accordance with the June 2005 divorce decree, she had first right of refusal to purchase them for their fair market value. The proceeds from the sale of both properties would be distributed to Beirne, with reimbursement to Jensen for mortgage and maintenance payments.
In the January 2006 minute entry, the court required both properties be sold without specifying who should do the selling. One year later the parties were back in court on unrelated matters and informed the court that the two properties remained unsold. The court then ordered the appointment of a special real estate commissioner to sell the Arizona property.
In May 2008 an evidentiary hearing took place where the special real estate commissioner stated he was unable to list the Arizona property. The court order that (1) the sale be completed to Jensen, (2) that the clerk of the court sign papers on Beirne’s behalf if he did not cooperate; and (3) that Jensen should be reimbursed if she continues to pay the mortgage until it’s sold.
Jennifer, thank you for being my attorney. I could not have been more pleased with the outcome of my family court hearing. Everything you have done for me throughout this case reflects in the final ruling of the judge. You helped me keep my head together and taught me a lot about myself as a person. I learned so much about my life from observing and listening to you. I will take all the advice you gave me to continue taking responsibility for my choices, continue to put the kids' needs first, and always stay truthful. Your diligence, dedication, and persistence in my case made what seemed impossible, possible. You are a wonderful person and an amazing attorney and I am stronger and more confident because of you.
I just want to again thank the Firm for working with me all that it has. I could not have done anything without everyone's assistance. You, Chris and Stacey have been and continue to provide me with compassion and hard work towards my case. Also a very special thanks to Kip for taking my case in the beginning. Also continued support from him and his dedication to providing me with his expertise in this matter.
After interviewing several law firms, I came across Jennifer Shick, and her firm, who I hired to represent me for my Family Court case. Jennifer has extensive knowledge of the law and is determined to bring the truth to every issue involved within the case. Throughout my case, Jennifer was prepared meticulously as well as went above and beyond all of my expectations. Even when the other party tried to differ from the truth, lie to the Judge, and turn situations around, Jennifer remained attentive and provided substantial evidence to show the judge the facts as well as the proof to support what was the best interests of my children. Additionally, Jennifer helped me endure many difficult experiences, situations and inspired me to remain positive throughout the entirety of my case. Her kindness, compassion, and professionalism helped me through very difficult times and made the process feel a thousand times lighter on my shoulders. She truly has my children and my best interest at heart and I trust her perspective as well as her honesty on each and every aspect of my case. She lessened the burden on my shoulders and even when I felt like the case was not going to go in my favor, Jennifer was open-minded and reassured me that the Judge would, in fact, see the truth, which he did and the case went in my favor. After nine months of court, everything finally came together. I cannot declare how much Jennifer has been an outstanding attorney. She addressed each and every issue with diligence, she cares about her clients and their families. Jennifer genuinely cares about her clients and her dedication to the details of the case was remarkable. Overall, I am extremely pleased with Jennifer’s services and I am truly thankful that I was so blessed to have her represent my children and me. I highly recommend Jennifer as one of the best attorneys in Arizona and if the situation ever arises, I will definitely have her represent my children and me again.
Dear Stacey and Kip, How can I ever thank you enough for helping me through the most difficult time in my life? I couldn't put into words my heartfelt gratefulness. You both were so compassionate and professional at every given moment throughout this process with me. I thank you from the bottom of my heart. You helped me to regain my freedom.
I was a client of Attorney Kevin Park for the dissolution of a divorce in 2016. And since I had never had the need to hire an attorney before for any purpose, I was somewhat apprehensive of the process. But the very calm and professional demeanor of Mr. Park eased my fears. He adeptly answered all my questions and I clearly knew the process and what to expect. And the skilled manner he communicated with opposing counsel was perfect. When it came down to negotiating with my spouse’s counsel, I knew I had selected the best attorney for my situation. What I noticed and appreciated was that he was using just the right amount of pressure with opposing counsel as was necessary. If you find yourself in this situation, you will want a seasoned professional like Mr. Park on your side. I'm very grateful that he was my attorney and not the opposition!
Chris is a smart and aggressive attorney for his clients. Chris always tries to reach a fair settlement of his cases. I’ve represented clients when Chris was the opposing counsel and while he is professional and amicable to work with, he does not back off on what he needs to do for his client
Kevin Park of Hildebrand Law was just what I needed for my divorce. He was very approachable and personable. He was quick to recognize what I needed and provided it quickly and efficiently. I hope to never need a divorce lawyer again, but if I know anyone else who does, I will definitely recommend Kevin.
I feel that Tracey Van Wickler is certainly one of the best family lawyers around. She is logical, intelligent, and truly cares. Tracey always does what is in the clients best interest, does it well, timely and with integrity. She is good at keeping her clients informed as to what is going on and clear in her communication both written and verbally. I have recommended Tracey to other people and will continue to recommend her. I recommended Tracey to someone who was having issues with their ex-wife and his response was, “I know how good she is because I went up against her and she ate me for lunch”. This same person was so impressed with her, he even recommended her to someone else, WOW, that is impressive! I am exceptionally happy with her attention to detail, her ability to explain things in ways that are easy to understand, as well as her ability to keep everyone focused on the most important things. I would recommend Tracey to anyone who may be in need of her services.
No other action or subsequent orders regarding the two properties occurred until Beirne filed a petition in July 2015. He claimed that, to his knowledge, Jensen had made no effort to list the property in England. He asked the court to order Jensen to pay him “an amount equal to the current equity in the property” and then he would deed his interest to her. He also requested that the court order Jensen to execute a quitclaim deed transferring her interest in the Arizona property to him.
The Statute of Limitations on a Divorce Decree in AZ.
At the hearing in October 2015, the court ordered Jensen to sign a quitclaim deed for the Arizona property and further ordered Beirne to refinance and remove Jensen’s name from the deed no later than January 15, 2016. Jensen further claimed her ‘right of first refusal’ to buy the England property. The court took the matter under advisement.
Shortly after the October 2015 hearing, the court issued a minute entry vacating the relief it granted to Beirne and dismissing his petition all together, with prejudice. The court ruled it “lacked the power to enforce the decree because Beirne’s petition was time-barred.” Beirne appealed the decision.
Decisions and Discussion
The court maintained that it lacked the power to enforce the orders because more than five years had passed since their entry and neither party had renewed them in accordance with A.R.S. Section 12-1551. Section 12-1551 states in part “An execution or another process shall not be issued on a judgment after the expiration of five years from the date of its entry unless the judgment is renewed by Affidavit or process….”
Arizona Statute of Limitations on a Divorce Decree.
The Appeals Court held that the statute of limitations the court relied upon does not apply to real property distributions that are not judgments for payments of specific amounts of money or judgments liens. In this case, the decree neither required payment of a specific amount of money due at a certain time nor did it create a judgment lien against the two properties at issue. The Court contends that A.R.S. Section 12-1551 is inapplicable to this case reversing the court’s ruling that “it lacked the power to enforce the dissolution decree and related orders.”
Further, the Court found that the limitations period was never triggered. Neither the decree nor any of the orders in the case dictated the date by which the two properties were to be sold. The statute’s five-year limitations period would be triggered only upon the circumstance of the sale of the properties or Jensen exercising her right of first refusal. And neither of these situations occurred. Therefore, the Court concluded that even if the decree and subsequent orders were judgments, as expressed in Section 12-1551, the five-year limitations period was not triggered. Accordingly, the Court reversed the ruling and remanded for further actions.
If you have a question about divorce in Arizona, please call to speak to one of our experienced Scottsdale and Phoenix Arizona divorce attorneys at (480)947-4339.