Posted on : March 29, 2016, By: Christopher Hildebrand
Statute of Limitations on Alimony in Arizona
The Ames Rule: Timing of Action for Unpaid Spousal
In Arizona, spousal support begins on a specific day and continues for the time specified in the divorce decree. Under the law, a spouse may bring a petition to enforce the order at any time up to three years after the time the spousal support terminates. What happens when a spouse repeatedly promises to pay but remains in arrears for years after the support was supposed to be paid? Can the other spouse still bring a petition? In Ames vs. Ames No. 1 CA-CV 15-0013 FC, filed March 10, 2016, the Arizona Court of Appeals discussed whether these kinds of assurances alter the three-year period in which to bring an enforcement action.
Facts of the Case
Statute of Limitations on Alimony in Arizona.
Julie and Gene Ames ended their marriage in 2003. The decree of dissolution ordered Gene to pay Julie $1,000 each month for four years. Gene did not keep up with those payments but repeatedly promised to make up the payments when he was able. In 2014, Julie filed a petition to enforce the support order. About $30,000 had not been paid. Gene made an oral motion to dismiss the petition. He claimed that it was barred by the three-year statute of limitations for enforcing support orders. The court took the matter under advisement. When it issued its ruling, it agreed with Gene that the petition was filed too late, and dismissed it. Julie appealed.
Julie claimed that she was denied due process because she was not given a chance to present written briefing to the court. The Court of Appeals noted that Julie told the divorce court she had anticipated and addressed Gene’s statute of limitations argument in her briefing after consulting an attorney. It further noted that she had not identified any other evidence she wanted to present. Therefore, the Court found that Julie’s due process rights were not violated.
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.
The written law setting out a three-year time period to bring an action to enforce spousal support payments is found at A.R.S. § 25-553A: The person to whom the spousal maintenance obligation is owed may file a request for judgment for spousal maintenance arrearages not later than three years after the date the spousal maintenance order terminates. Julie argued that this statute did not apply to her case, because, she claimed, no time was set in the divorce decree for the spousal payment order to terminate.
She says that Gene owed her $48,000 and that the spousal would not terminate until he paid it. The Court did not agree with this position. It said that the clear language of the Ames’ decree set spousal payments for four years. The period began as soon as the decree was entered, and it terminated four years later, that is, in 2007. Julie then had three years – until 2010 – to file a petition to enforce the decree. She did not file until 2014, so the petition was too late. It was barred by the statute of limitations.
Extension by Agreement
Julie argued that Gene’s communications with her promising to pay when he found another job essentially extended the three-year statute of limitations. However, the Court did not agree. Although the emails from Gene that Julie submitted to the Court showed that Gene regretted not being able to pay and hoped he would be able to pay in the future, there was no discussion of extending the statute of limitations for her to bring an action.
Julie argues that enforcement of spousal maintenance should be treated the same as child support collections actions since the policy arguments for the two are the same. She points to the law governing the collection of back child support following the termination of a child support order. Under the law, the paying parent must prove that the other parent “unreasonably delayed” in attempting to collect the back support before the statute of limitations is imposed.
The Court of Appeals noted that the legislature could have put this language in the spousal support statute but did not do so. The Court also said that the shorter time frame is consistent with the purpose of spousal support in Arizona — to encourage a transition to independence. The Court of Appeals ruled against Julie. It affirmed the divorce court’s dismissal of her petition because it was barred by the three-year statute of limitations.