Ronee Korbin Steiner’s Post

The Court of Appeals issued two family court opinions on June 4, 2024. Goodell v. Goodell 1 CA-CV 23-0366 FC GOODELL v. GOODELL.pdf (azcourts.gov) Tiger v. Pennel 1 CA-CV 23-0236 FC - Tiger v. Pennel - Opinion.pdf (azcourts.gov) Goodell involved several matters including the continued issues over allowing extrinsic evidence to an unambiguous contract. The opinion also addresses Husband’s post filing reimbursement claims made under a Rule 69 agreement, an award for waste to Wife for a portion of unvested Restricted Stock Units Husband forfeited when he started a new, higher paying job, the claim the Court failed to credit the parties’ stipulation to an award and an assessment of attorney’s fees award. In Pannel, the Court addressed the issue of service but more specifically, whether the court erred in allowing alternative service through social media accounts without requiring specific details showing how such service methods would be reasonably calculated to alert the respondent of the petition.

I will be presenting on this issue at the 2024 judicial conference. Judges have many kinds of litigants. It’s important learn what we can about them. This presentation is about Sovereign Citizens and other parties appearing pro se. Looking forward to providing some tips to judges across the state.

CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL! especially Emily Steiner!

Starting this Wednesday- Open to Lawyers, Doctors and the entire community. CLE Credits in Arizona. For CME credits please message Shlomy Levertov. This looks a very cool learning experience. Sign up at https://lnkd.in/g4yNu2mX

While this week’s case is a juvenile case, it presents an interesting issue towards family law cases as well regarding a child’s unwillingness to engage in reunification efforts with a parent. The Court of Appeals, Div. 2, issued a published opinion on a permanent guardianship action. The Court affirmed the lower court’s decision. Here are the issues. The link to the case is in the comments. 2 CA-JV 2023-0133 - IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF C.M. Issues summary: 1. Did the juvenile court err by relying on this court’s reasoning in a severance case, Desiree S. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 235 Ariz. 532 (App. 2014), in a permanent guardianship proceeding? 2. Did the evidence support the juvenile court’s finding, under A.R.S. § 8-871(A)(3), that further reunification efforts between C.M. and her mother would not be unproductive? The lower court denied the guardianship motion finding that the child did not meet her burden to show that further reunification efforts would be unproductive. Mother wanted to engage in counseling with the child but the child refused to participate in reunification with Mother. While the court can consider the refusal as it relates to best interest, the child’s refusal alone and without a reasoned basis was insufficient to establish that further reunification efforts would be unproductive.

Hey interns. externs and first year associates, and also existing lawyers looking to support these younger lawyers, come on out to the MCBA Summer social. Great way to let off some steam and to network.

This week’s post about case law is actually from a Memorandum Decision in Dyrek v Dyrek 1 CA-CV 23-0237. We have seen language like this before. As a reminder, there are times when litigants file in Family Court and the case “feels like” it should have been filed as a Civil action (and vice versa). This past week Division One of the Court of Appeals issued the memo decision (reversing the lower court) (excerpt below) reflecting that rather than dismissing the case, the more appropriate course of action may be to transfer the case between departments rather than dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction on ARCvP Rule 12(b)(1) grounds [or correspond ARFLP Rule 29(a)(1)]. In Maricopa County, we departmentalize for convenience because of our size (4th largest trial court in the country). Smaller counties do not do this and therefore, there is a good chance similar dismissals do not happen (as much). The term “jurisdiction” sometimes gets thrown out and used improperly. The civil department has the same jurisdiction as the family court. However, given family court courtrooms generally don’t have jury boxes, the judges are often not trained to conduct jury trials, and the time it takes to conduct a jury trial all may be impediments to the family court judge conducting a jury trial. This however, is not a jurisdictional issue. Each case should be analyzed based on claims and facts. Dismissal could be warranted. Otherwise, the COA suggests we should transfer these cases between departments. Language from the memo decision is in the comments. I also included the link.