April 22, 2010 CV 09-0376 Simpson v. Simpson
If the trial court awards child support pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes section 25-320(A) at the time of a family court proceeding, must it also award child support pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes section 25-320(B) for the time period from the date of petition to the time of the proceeding? Read opinion.

1.  Does the reasoning of Little v. Little, on what test to apply to attribute greater
income to a parent for support purposes, apply to attributing income to a spouse
for maintenance purposes?

2.  What factors should a court consider in determining whether to attribute greater
income to a spouse for maintenance purposes?

This case gives a good overview of what factors courts will consider regarding spousal maintenance and child support amounts relative to obligor and obligee’s income.  FOR MORE INFORMATION ON CHILD SUPPORT AND SPOUSAL MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS CONTACT THE LAW OFFICE OF JAMES CORK PLLC – 480-626-4881.

SEE OPINION

Husband’s Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA) income was community property during the marriage, for purposes of determining whether firearms husband purchased with his FECA proceeds were community assets subject to division in marriage dissolution action; husband became disabled shortly after the marriage while working as a United States postal employee, FECA benefits compensated claimants for lost wages, loss of earning capacity and medical expenses, and husband did not demonstrate what portion of his FECA benefits, if any, constituted compensation for injury to his personal well-being.

Further, a trial court in a marriage dissolution can order child support for a disabled adult child even if a support order has not been issued prior to the child’s emancipation, as statute authorizes a court to make a child support award for a disabled adult child even if a child is over the age of majority when a petition is filed.

Read Opinion

1.  Child Support: Arizona Court of Appeals Division 1

East v. Matthews, 222 Ariz. 99, 213 P.3d 248 (Division One, June 25, 2009)

Does Section 8 of the Arizona Child Support Guidelines, which permits
a court to increase the amount of child support if the parties’ combined
adjusted gross income exceeds $20,000 per month after taking into
account factors including “the standard of living the children would have
enjoyed if the parents and children were living together,” apply in paternity
actions in which the parents never lived together?

Engel v. Landman, 221 Ariz. 504, 212 P.3d 842, 555 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 4 (Division One, April 30, 2009)

A. Was the imputation of income and daycare expenses to the unemployed parent appropriate in calculating child support in the circumstances of this case?

B. Did the trial court use an appropriate method to calculate income from stock options in its calculation of income of one of the parents?

2. Custody: Arizona Court of Appeals Division 1

Reid v Reid, 222 Ariz. 204, 213 P.3d 353 (Division One, July 28, 2009)

A. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in allowing an expert witness to testify, even though the witness was first disclosed eight days prior to trial?

B. Pursuant to A.R.S. §25-403(B), did the trial court fail to adequately set forth its findings regarding all of the relevant factors listed in Section 25-403(A) and why the court’s decision is in the best interests of the children?

C. Did the Father waive his right to raise the issue regarding the failure of the court to make findings pursuant to A.R.S. §25-403(A) and (B) because he failed to raise it with the lower court?

Hurd v. Hurd, 222 Ariz. 246, 213 P.3d 683 (Division One, July 23, 2009)

Whether the Court abused its discretion by awarding Mother sole legal custody without making detailed findings of fact as required by A.R.S. section 25-403(B), and whether the Court additional abused its discretion in allowing the Mother to relocate out of state.

3.  Spousal Maintenance: Arizona Court of Appeals Division 1

Kline v. Kline, 221 Ariz. 564, 212 P.3d 902 (Division One, May 21, 2009).

Whether an award of spousal maintenance by default judgment is valid under Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 44(G) [the family law default decree rule] when the specific demand for maintenance was first contained in an amended pleading that was never served.

for more information on arizona case law issues or arizona general attorney see www.phoenixarizonalaw.com