Call Now(480)305-8300

Home » When Can You Modify Child Support in AZ | Hildebrand Law, PC

When Can You Modify Child Support in AZ | Hildebrand Law, PC

Posted on : March 6, 2018, By: Chris Hildebrand

divorce lawyers Phoenix AZ

When Can You Modify Child Support in Arizona

The Short Answer

The short answer to the question when can you modify child support in Arizona is anytime the child support amount is at least 15% greater or lower than the existing child support order even if there are no other changes to the parents’ income or other child support factors.

Read the Arizona Court of Appeal decision in the case of Birnstihl vs. Birnstihl to learn more about when you can modify child support in Arizona.

The Long Answer

The Arizona Court of Appeals answered the question in a published opinion when can you modify child support in Arizona in the case of Birnstihl vs. Birnstihl. Ms. Birnstihl (“Mother”) appeals from the superior court’s order dismissing her petition to modify child support.

We hold under the Arizona Child Support Guidelines, Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 25-320 (“Guidelines”), if a parent requesting a modification of child support under the simplified procedure presents a colorable claim that application of the Guidelines results in a fifteen percent variation from the current child support order, claim preclusion does not prevent a superior court from addressing the request on the merits. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

When Can You Modify Child Support in Arizona.

When Can You Modify Child Support in Arizona?

Mother and Mr. Birnstihl (“Father”) divorced in 2011.

They have four children in common.

In the divorce decree, the superior court awarded Mother and Father joint legal decision-making and equal parenting time of their two younger children.

However, the court awarded Mother sole legal decision-making of their two older children, with no parenting time awarded to Father.

Consistent with the Guidelines, the superior court ordered Father to pay Mother $1850 per month in child support.

In April 2016, Father petitioned to modify child support (“April 2016 petition”) under the Guidelines § 24(B) (Simplified Procedure), seeking a downward modification of his child support obligation to $939.62 per month due to:

(1) the oldest child’s emancipation;

(2) Father’s satisfaction of his spousal maintenance obligation; and

(3) Mother’s change in income.

Mother did not request a hearing or otherwise respond to Father’s petition. See Guidelines § 24(B) (“If the requested modification is disputed, the parent receiving service must request a hearing within 20 days of service.”).

In June 2016, the superior court modified Father’s child support obligation to $939.62 per month (the “Order”).

ARVE Error: Not a valid thumbnail URL or Media ID given

Ten days after the court entered the Order, Mother, representing herself, requested a hearing and counter-petitioned requesting that Father pay $1160.15 per month in child support.

The court never ruled on Mother’s untimely request for a hearing, nor the counter-petition, meaning they are deemed denied. See State v. Hill, 174 Ariz. 313, 323 (1993) (“A motion that is not ruled on is deemed denied by operation of law.”); Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Parr, 96 Ariz. 13, 15 (1964) (motions not ruled upon deemed denied by operation of law).

In August 2016, Mother, now represented by counsel, moved to correct the Order pursuant to Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure 85(C).

Mother argued the Order was based on incorrect information regarding Father’s gross income and his parenting time. See Guidelines §§ 5, 11.

She claimed Father had no parenting time with the oldest of the remaining minor children; therefore, he did not have equal parenting time as stated in the April 2016 petition.

Mother also claimed Father’s gross monthly income was $24,703.17, not $16,175.83 as listed by Father.

Father responded to Mother’s Rule 85(C) motion arguing that “Mother had ample time to request a hearing if she did not agree to Father’s calculations.”

The superior court denied the motion and the Mother did not appeal.

The same day Mother moved to correct the Order under Rule 85(C), she separately petitioned to modify child support using the simplified procedure per Guidelines § 24(B).

Mother’s petition to modify mirrored her arguments in the Rule 85(C) motion, namely, that the Order was premised on incorrect information concerning Father’s income and parenting time.

Mother requested that Father is ordered to pay $3005.27 per month in child support.

Father moved to dismiss Mother’s petition arguing that “Mother’s failure to comply with the rules and request a timely hearing bar her from the relief she now requests.”

Father further argued that incorrect information used in a child support calculation cannot support a finding that there has been a “showing of changed circumstances that is substantial and continuing” under A.R.S. § 25-503(E).

The court dismissed Mother’s petition, finding “the allegations contained in [Mother’s petition] do not allege a sufficient ‘showing of changed circumstances that is substantial and continuing’ as is required by A.R.S. § 25-503(E).” Mother did not appeal.

In October 2016, Mother again petitioned to modify child support using the simplified procedure (“October 2016 petition”), requesting Father pay $2268.94 per month.

In an attached child support worksheet, Mother listed Father’s income as $20,000 per month based on Father’s 2015 income tax return, which she attached as an exhibit to her petition.

Mother listed Father’s parenting time as 121 days.

Father moved to dismiss Mother’s petition, arguing there was no change of circumstances warranting modification from the Order or from the previously filed motion to modify filed in August. See supra.

After oral argument, the superior court dismissed Mother’s petition. Mother timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1) and -2101(A)(1).

Ruling on When You Can Modify Child Support in Arizona

Change in Circumstances to Modify Child Support in Arizona.

Change in Circumstances to Modify Child Support in Arizona.

We review child support awards for abuse of discretion. Sherman v. Sherman, 241 Ariz. 110, 112 (App. 2016); Engel v. Landman, 221 Ariz. 504, 510 (App. 2009).

An abuse of discretion occurs when the court commits an error of law that underlies its exercise of discretion. Kohler v. Kohler, 211 Ariz. 106, 107 (App. 2005).

We accept the court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous, but review de novo the court’s conclusions of law and interpretation of the Guidelines. Nia v. Nia, 242 Ariz. 419, 422 (App. 2017).

We look “to the [Guidelines’] plain language as the most reliable indicator of the supreme court’s intent.” Milinovich v. Womack, 236 Ariz. 612, 615 (App. 2015).

We “strive to interpret the relevant section in conjunction with other provisions of the Guidelines and consistent with their overall purpose.” Id.

Guidelines § 24 permits either parent to petition the superior court to modify child support upon a showing of a substantial and continuing change of circumstances. See A.R.S. § 25-503(E).

The party seeking the modification may use a standard procedure or a simplified procedure. Guidelines § 24(A), (B). When using the simplified procedure: A party seeking to modify child support . . . shall file with the clerk of the court a request for simplified modification, accompanied by a sworn Parent’s Worksheet for Child Support Amount, and pay the required filing fee.

The parties shall then follow the procedures specified in the [Guidelines]. Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 91(B)(2)(b).

A parent may request the court to modify child support using the simplified procedure if applying the Guidelines “results in an order that varies 15% or more from the existing [child support order].” Guidelines § 24(B).

Book an Appointment Today!

Book an Appointment Today!

Under the simplified procedure: A fifteen percent variation in the amount of the order will be considered evidence of substantial and continuing change of circumstances.

A request for modification of the child support amount must be accompanied by a completed and sworn “Parent’s Worksheet for Child Support Amount,” and documentation supporting the incomes if different from the court’s most recent findings regarding income of the parents. * * * A copy of the request for modification of child support and the “Parent’s Worksheet for Child Support Amount,” including supporting documentation, showing that the proposed child support amount would vary 15% or more from the existing child support order shall be served on the other parent . . . . If the requested modification is disputed, the parent receiving service must request a hearing within 20 days of service. * * * Upon proof of service and if no hearing is requested within the time allowed, the court will review the request and enter an appropriate order or set the matter for hearing. If any party requests a hearing within the time allowed, the court shall conduct such hearing. No order shall be modified without a hearing if one is requested. Guidelines § 24(B) (emphasis added).

Hildebrand Law, PC | Voted Best of Our Valley in Arizona Foothills Magazine.

Hildebrand Law, PC | Voted Best of Our Valley in Arizona Foothills Magazine.

Mother argues the superior court erred in dismissing her October 2016 petition. She contends the superior court should have held a hearing because her petition “contained allegations sufficient to show the difference between the [Order] and the amount as calculated and alleged in [her] petition differed by more than 15%.”

To support her claim, Mother points to Father’s 2015 tax returns that were attached to her petition that show a discrepancy between Father’s gross income and that used to calculate the Order.

Also, Mother claims the superior court incorrectly calculated Father’s parenting time because the amount credited to Father in the Order differed from the amount of parenting time awarded to Father in the parties’ divorce decree.

The parenting time order in the decree has not been modified.

Father argues the superior court made findings in the Order on all relevant child support factors, including his income and parenting time, and that Mother cannot now argue there has been a substantial and continuing change in circumstances based on the numbers “she prefers.”

Father maintains that, even if the factors listed in the Order are incorrect, no circumstances have changed since the court entered the Order and when Mother petitioned to modify child support, and thus the superior court correctly dismissed the petition.

We construe Father’s argument to be that Mother’s petition to modify child support is barred by claim preclusion. See Hall v. Lalli, 194 Ariz. 54, 57 (1999) (claim preclusion “preclude[s] a claim when a former judgment on the merits was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction and the matter now in issue between the same parties or their privities was, or might have been, determined in the former action”).

Claim Preclusion is No Bar to Modifying Child Support in Arizona

This court has previously held claim preclusion did not prevent the superior court from considering whether changed circumstances warranted reinstating child support. In re Marriage of Gibbs, 227 Ariz. 403, 408 (App. 2011) (although the doctrine of claim preclusion “enforces important principles of judicial economy and finality, its application, under the specific circumstances here, would undermine the public policy expressed in our applicable child support modification statutes by preventing consideration of changed circumstances”).

Based on the text of the Guidelines, we likewise hold claim preclusion does not prevent a court from considering a parent’s contention that a modification of child support is warranted based on incorrect information used in a previous calculation. See Gibbs, 227 Ariz. at 408 (“To the extent, there is a conflict between policies behind claim preclusion and those expressed through the statutes addressing child support modification, the legislature’s word controls.”).

Our child support modification statutes provide that, so long as a party makes a showing of a substantial and continuing change of circumstances, child support may be modified even after a final order is entered. A.R.S. §§ 25-327(A), -503(E); Guidelines § 24.

The Guidelines further permit a parent to use the simplified procedure if applying the Guidelines results in a fifteen percent variation from the current child support order. Guidelines § 24(B).

The statutory provisions allowing a parent to petition to modify child support at any time also supports our conclusion that claim preclusion is not to be rigidly applied in child support modification cases. See A.R.S. § 25-327(A); Guidelines § 24.

Thus, claim preclusion does not preclude the superior court from considering Mother’s October 2016 petition and determining if incorrect information was used, and if so, whether the correct information would change the child support order by fifteen percent.

Modify Child Support in Arizona.

Modify Child Support in Arizona.

Under the facts of this case, the superior court should have held an evidentiary hearing before ruling on Father’s motion to dismiss to assess Father’s income and parenting time. See Gibbs, 227 Ariz. at 407 (“Even when the technical requirements for preclusion based on a former adjudication are met, the court should not apply preclusion principles []where there is some overriding consideration of fairness to a litigant,’[] as determined by the particular case’s circumstances.”).

Both income and parenting time are relevant factors when determining child support, see Guidelines §§ 8, 11, and the facts surrounding both were in dispute.

Under the simplified procedure, the parent seeking to modify child support must include a completed and sworn child support worksheet and documentation supporting the parents’ incomes “if different from the court’s most recent findings regarding the income of the parents.” Guidelines § 24(B).

Mother included supporting documentation for Father’s income, and the decree was inconsistent with Father’s stated parenting time.

Mother’s child support worksheet accompanying her October 2016 petition resulted in at least a fifteen percent variation in Father’s child support obligation per the Guidelines as compared to the Order. “A fifteen percent variation in the amount of the order will be considered evidence of substantial and continuing change of circumstances.” Id.

Incorrect Income Figures in Child Support Calculation is a Basis to Modify Child Support in Arizona

Mother produced evidence that incorrect information was used in the Order.

If Mother’s evidence is correct, it would result in a substantial and continuing change of circumstances resulting in a fifteen percent variance in the child support order. See Guidelines § 24(B).

Because Father disputed Mother’s requested modification, the Guidelines required him to request a hearing. See id. Because Father did not request a hearing, under the Guidelines in effect at the time Mother petitioned to modify child support, and under the Guidelines, effective April 1, 2018, Father’s child support obligation should reflect that he and Mother have multiple children with different parenting plans. See Guidelines § 11;

Per the Guidelines, Father’s parenting time credit is based on the number of parenting days Father actually exercises.

Per the Guidelines, the superior court should have “review[ed] the request and enter[ed] an appropriate order or set the matter for hearing.” See id. (emphasis added).

The superior court did hear argument on Father’s Motion to Dismiss. The court asked Mother’s counsel multiple times what circumstances had changed since the court entered the Order, but the parties did not submit additional evidence or testify.

In its order granting Father’s Motion to Dismiss, the superior court stated: Mother initially argued that there has been the requisite change in circumstances since the last order . . . but after further questioning by the Court conceded that they did not occur during the relevant time period.

The superior court incorrectly interpreted the Guidelines. A parent must show “changed circumstances that are substantial and continuing” before child support may be modified. A.R.S. §§ 25-327(A), -503(E); Guidelines § 24.

Incorrect Income in Prior Child Support Calculation Allows Modification of Child Support

Modification of Child Support in Arizona..

Modification of Child Support in Arizona.

Changed circumstances in the context of child support modification, however, may be that incorrect information was used to determine a previous order.

Thus, the superior court’s inquiry should have focused on whether Mother’s October 2016 petition alleged a colorable claim that incorrect information was used in the Order, and if the information is corrected would there be a fifteen percent variation in the child support order.

The superior court’s determination of Father’s child support obligation in the Order was based solely on Father’s April 2016 petition and accompanying child support worksheet, which did not include supporting documentation.

Mother and Father’s respective child support worksheets alleged different incomes and parenting time, and a hearing is a preferred method for resolving disputed facts. See Pridgeon v. Superior Court, 134 Ariz. 177, 181 (1982) (“[I]f . . . affidavits are directly in opposition upon any substantial and crucial fact relevant to the grounds for [child custody] modification, the court may not conduct a ‘trial by affidavit’, attempting to weigh the credibility of the opposing statements. In such a case, the court must hold a hearing.”); Volk v. Brame, 235 Ariz. 462, 467, 469 (App. 2014) (a hearing where the parties were only permitted to submit documents to the court and neither party was permitted to testify provided “no adversarial check on the quality of the information that Mother provided to the court and upon which it relied to modify Father’s child support obligation”).

Father argues allowing Mother to petition to modify child support because she calculated a fifteen percent variation from the Order “would lead to chaos and mass filings” in the superior courts because “any aggrieved parent unhappy with a [c]ourt’s findings” could endlessly petition to modify child support, “alleging a 15% change, when in fact there is NO change in the circumstances underlying the existing Order.”

However, as discussed above, a request for modification using the simplified procedure must be accompanied by a child support worksheet and supporting documentation if the income alleged is “different from the court’s most recent findings.” Guidelines § 24(B).

Accordingly, the parent seeking modification must present a colorable claim that there has been a change in relevant factors, or that an error occurred in determining the relevant factors, such that applying the Guidelines results in a fifteen percent variation from the current child support order.

We acknowledge Mother failed to object or respond to Father’s April 2016 petition, and we do not question the superior court’s decision to enter the Order without holding a hearing or receiving evidence from Mother.

We also note any modification to Father’s child support obligation would be prospective only, as “[m]odifications . . . are effective on the first day of the month following notice of the petition for modification.” A.R.S. § 25-327(A) (unless the court “for good cause shown” orders the modification to be effective at a different date not earlier than the date the petition was filed).

Consequently, by not responding to Father’s April 2016 petition or appealing the superior court’s dismissal of Mother’s earlier petitions to modify, Mother may receive less child support than she was entitled to for the months between when the superior court entered the Order and when Mother filed the October 2016 petition.

Mother’s subsequent petition sufficiently raised a colorable claim that application of the Guidelines results in a fifteen percent variation in Father’s child support obligation.

Therefore, the superior court erred by not holding a hearing to determine Father’s correct income, parenting time, and whether his child support obligation should be modified.

Both parties request an award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure (“ARCAP”) 21(a) and (c) and A.R.S. § 25-324. Section 25-324 affords a court discretion to award a party reasonable attorney’s fees based on the “financial resources of both parties and the reasonableness of the positions each party has taken throughout the proceedings.”

In exercising our discretion, we award Mother her reasonable attorney’s fees on appeal. As the prevailing party on appeal, Mother is also entitled to costs upon her compliance with ARCAP 21.

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the superior court’s dismissal of Mother’s October 2016 petition and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Book an Appointment Today!

Book an Appointment Today!

Contact Our Scottsdale Arizona Child Support Attorneys

Call us today at (480)305-8300 to schedule your personalized consultation with one of our experienced Arizona child support attorneys at our award-winning law firm located in Scottsdale, Arizona to get answers to your questions about child support in Arizona.

U.S. News and World Report “Best Divorce Law Firm | 2020”, “Best of the Valley” by Arizona Foothills Magazine, “Top Family Law Attorney” by North Valley Magazine, “AV Rated Divorce Attorney” by Martindale-Hubbell” and many more.

Other Articles About Child Support in Arizona

Scottsdale Arizona Divorce Attorney.

Scottsdale Arizona Divorce Attorney.

Chris Hildebrand wrote this article to ensure everyone has access to information about family law in Arizona. Chris is a divorce and family law attorney at Hildebrand Law, PC. He has over 24 years of Arizona family law experience and has received multiple awards, including US News and World Report “Top Arizona Divorce Attorneys”, Phoenix Magazine “Top Divorce Law Firms”, and Arizona Foothills Magazine “Best of the Valley” award. He believes the policies and procedures he uses to get his clients through a divorce should all be guided by the principles of honesty, integrity, and, quite frankly, actually caring about what his clients are going through in a divorce or family law case. In short, his practice is defined by the success of his clients. He also manages all of the other attorneys at his firm to make sure the outcomes in their clients’ cases are successful as well.

Hildebrand Law, PC

4.2

A Google User

A Google User

21:41 07 Nov 17

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.

A Google User

A Google User

16:03 22 Nov 17

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.

A Google User

A Google User

18:16 18 Sep 17

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

Bassam Ziadeh

Bassam Ziadeh

21:20 02 Apr 18

I retained Hildebrand Law after interview a number of firms in the valley. Working with Michael C. was incredibly easy and informative. My case progressed in such a organized and thought out way to ensure that my needs were met. Michael was incredibly proactive and was able to see far ahead into my case to steer clear of some roadblocks. I would not hesitate to recommend Michael Clancy, and Hildebrand Law in general, to anyone.

Larry Flint

Larry Flint

21:53 27 Feb 18

I have worked with Hildebrand law for about 8 years. They are always ready to serve, provide guidance and give you a few options. When they provide you options they also take the time to walk you through the pros and cons of each and give you a recommendation of what is best, but will listen to you and support whatever course you choose after making and educated choice. I’d recommend them to my closest friends and feel Chris Hildebrand is now a friend to me.

Sam Franchimone

Sam Franchimone

22:09 12 Sep 13

Despite the unfortunate situation I found myself in, Chris Hildebrand @ Hildebrand Law helped me maneuver every step with professionalism, expertise, and even a sensitivity that was an added bonus. Chris and his staff helped me even when I didn't know I needed the help. In other words. . . they made sure we did not leave anything undone. And in the rare instance we needed the expertise of another professional, Chris knew exactly who to recommend. Chris also knew, because of his experience, what to anticipate down the road of litigation. That meant we were better prepared to meet the challenges head on, which lead to a more equitable and fair outcome. I appreciated that Chris did his best to meet my every need in a timely fashion, even if I had a simple question that required only a phone call or e-mail or if we needed to talk face-to-face. I highly recommend Chris Hildebrand @ Hildebrand Law, PC.

Lindsay Donoian

Lindsay Donoian

06:53 27 Sep 14

I cannot express enough how thankful I am that I found Hildrebrand Law. Chris Hildebrand is an excellent attorney who has my best interests in mind and always encourages me to do the right thing regardless of what the opposing party is doing. Chris knows family law very well and relies on that knowledge to format options and solutions for each situation that may arise. He knows what the Court expects and what will and will not be tolerated. He has attempted to settle this case quickly and as inexpensively as possible from the start. His paralegal, Laura, is remarkable. She is organized, quick to respond, and compassionate. Chris is well prepared with a binder full of detailed and organized information and that is likely due to her thorough skills and expertise. While getting a divorce that was unexpected is a painful and difficult process, Chris and Laura treat my family and I like friends rather than another just "client." I am hopeful that I do not need to recommend divorce lawyers to anyone in the future but if I do, Hildebrand Law will be a recommendation I would give hands down.

Jim Caryl

Jim Caryl

22:53 26 Jul 18

I interviewed several firms and selected Hildebrand Law for my difficult military divorce as a direct result of their whole family concern and integrity. During the interview process the professionals at Hildebrand Law were as concerned for the well being of my children as I was and ensured that they presented several options along the way to ensure that we protected my children's needs as well as my financial situation. At each decision point they laid out a clear path, how it impacted the children, the financial situation. They even reminded me that my ultimate stated goal was the best interest of my children each time the other party got particularly challenging and my frustration was getting the better of me. The owner handled my case personally and was exceptionally well versed in the unique aspects of a divorce involving the military and associated benefits. Won't need them again (fingers crossed!!! :) ) but would totally recommend them to anyone!

sandi rigney

sandi rigney

17:19 28 Jun 18

We had a fairly complicated case in Family Court and Juvenile Court. Kip was an excellent attorney. He covered every base there was to cover and left no stone unturned. I would highly recommend him to anyone going through custody proceedings. Hildebrand Law is an excellent law firm and I am confident that Kip or any of their other attorneys would do an excellent job! Thanks Kip and Hildebrand Law!

PrinceAiden Johnson

PrinceAiden Johnson

17:15 13 Jun 18

The firm of Hildebrand Law is top notch. It's necessary to state again that Kent Millward is the epitome of excellence in a vast community of attorneys and will fight valiantly for you. We hired Kent and discovered a very good attorney with a good heart. For great family law representation and more this is the Law Firm for you. To Chris, Kent, Alison and all of Hildebrand Law,Thank you so much!

Richard Sipan

Richard Sipan

23:51 18 Oct 18

I first should comment on how I found this law firm. I am an attorney myself, though never licensed in Arizona. I moved to Arizona to rejoin my wife and son, who had moved out to Arizona ahead of me. Things soured. I don't know why, but they did.There was a particular issue for me with inherited property. I did some basic Internet research, and Hildebrand's name kept coming up as the author of scholarly articles on the issue concerning me. I asked that Hildebrand be assigned to my case. This was not possible, but his second in command, Mr. Micuda, took over, and Mr. Micuda knows his business.The initial scheduled 1 hour meeting ran for an hour and 45 minutes, and facts, law, and strategy were fully discussed. Throughout the case, everything was explained to me clearly, both verbally and in writing.Proceedings went forward without delay. Because I had selected one of the most prominent Domestic Relations firms in town, there was no serious opposition. This ended up being an essentially co-operative divorce between the two sides, the reasoning being to conserve assets rather than enrich lawyers.Through a series of 3 or 4 payments, I put up about $10,000 for fees and costs. I found the Hildebrand law firm's billings to be fair. They billed for work done; no padding. I am getting about 25% of what I paid in back, as a refund.The matter was done in about 6 months: divorce, agreed property settlement, agreed support provisions as to my son. My matters were handled by an attorney and paralegal team, and handled efficiently.Mine was not a "big" case in terms of its economic value to anyone, but I did not feel like a second or third class citizen; I was treated with the same respect, even though the dispute was over a condo, as opposed to, say, a Scottsdale mansion with land.This may sound strange, but i was actually somewhat sorry that the matter had to come to a conclusion. I felt that I had been treated like a friend, not just an anonymous customer. Being a practical man, I realize it's down to sending a Christmas or other seasonal card.As I said at the outset, I found this place by dint of my own research. I feel I am a lucky man that I did.

Niko RedMoon

Niko RedMoon

02:57 18 Jan 19

This is not only a great law firm that cares about their clients but also the results they get for their clients. Great people and attorneys, I highly recommend this firm!

Rick Cabral

Rick Cabral

23:23 22 Jan 19

Chris Hildebrand is one of the sharpest and effective attorneys that I have encountered in my 27 years of business. Doing business on the East Coast, as well as Southern California and Arizona has afforded me countless opportunities to work with legal minds from various parts of the country. Needless to say, Chris is by far one of the most honest, intelligent and street smart attorneys I have encountered. I have referred a number of people to Chris and everyone has been fully satisfied. 100% recommend him!

Brandi Slaybaugh

Brandi Slaybaugh

13:11 05 Apr 19

Compassionate and patient and helped so much. The best attorney I've ever dealt with. Nothing but good things to say about Chris. So grateful.

Shari Abbit

Shari Abbit

21:15 12 Apr 19

HIGHLY RECOMMEND! Cannot say enough wonderful things about my experience with Hildebrand Law. I have been working with Chris and the firm for about 6 years now, and I always feel like my concerns, issues and questions are addressed in a thorough and timely manner. They definitely have my best interests at heart. I recommend Chris whenever anyone asks me who I used as my divorce attorney. Great firm and great results!

Michelle Harrington

Michelle Harrington

20:54 24 Jul 19

I hired Michael Clancy just when I was about to give up on an existing post-decree case which I started with a different attorney over a year ago. Michael is knowledgeable, upfront and personable; he gave me the confidence to continue and settle my post decree case. I knew he was secure, capable and could handle my case and represent me well. He did everything he could to ensure a great outcome for the modification of my current court orders to help my son have a more stable mental, social and physical well-being, which to me is priceless! I would highly recommend him to anyone who wants to be in the best possible hands during one of the most stressful events that could happen to any parent that wants the best for their child/children. Thank you Michael for fighting for my son's safety!! Also, his paralegal, Alison, was awesome and very helpful!

Shari Abbit

Shari Abbit

21:15 12 Apr 19

HIGHLY RECOMMEND! Cannot say enough wonderful things about my experience with Hildebrand Law. I have been working with Chris and the firm for about 6 years now, and I always feel like my concerns, issues and questions are addressed in a thorough and timely manner. They definitely have my best interests at heart. I recommend Chris whenever anyone asks me who I used as my divorce attorney. Great firm and great results!

Rick Cabral

Rick Cabral

23:23 22 Jan 19

Chris Hildebrand is one of the sharpest and effective attorneys that I have encountered in my 27 years of business. Doing business on the East Coast, as well as Southern California and Arizona has afforded me countless opportunities to work with legal minds from various parts of the country. Needless to say, Chris is by far one of the most honest, intelligent and street smart attorneys I have encountered. I have referred a number of people to Chris and everyone has been fully satisfied. 100% recommend him!

See All Reviews Write a review