Opinion
No. 1 CA-CV 13-0086
01-16-2014
STATE OF ARIZONA ex rel. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY, Petitioner/Appellee, ELIZABETH ANN WILLIAMS, Petitioner/Appellant, v. DURRANT EDWARD WILLIAMS, Respondent/Appellee.
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Carol A. Salvati Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee Elizabeth Ann Williams, Phoenix Petitioner/Appellant in Propria Persona Durrant Edward Williams, Tempe Respondent/Appellee in Propria Persona
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZ. R. SUP. CT. 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT
AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. FC2012-005580
The Honorable Jaime B. Holguin, Commissioner
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By Carol A. Salvati
Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee
Elizabeth Ann Williams, Phoenix Petitioner/Appellant in Propria Persona Durrant Edward Williams, Tempe Respondent/Appellee in Propria Persona
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Andrew W. Gould delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Peter B. Swann and Judge Jon W. Thompson joined. GOULD, Judge:
¶1 Elizabeth Williams ("Mother") appeals from the family court's judgment modifying child support. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
¶2 Mother married Durrant Williams ("Father") in 1995 and filed for divorce on April 10, 2000. The parties had one minor child during their marriage ("Child"). During the dissolution proceedings, Mother and Father filed a joint "Parent's Worksheet" concerning child support. The Worksheet stated that the parties had agreed to deviate from the standard child support guidelines, and that neither parent would be responsible to pay the other any child support. Mother and Father subsequently submitted a consent decree for the court's signature, which provided that pursuant to the parties' agreement and the best interests of the Child, no child support would be paid by Mother or Father. The court signed the consent decree in October 2000.
¶3 In September 2007, Mother filed a petition to modify parenting time and establish child support. Mother claimed a child support modification was justified because of a change in Father's visitation schedule and new expenses that Mother was incurring related to caring for the Child. After a temporary orders hearing, the court ordered Father to pay Mother temporary child support in the amount of $497 per month. The court issued no orders regarding past child support. Father subsequently filed a request for reconsideration, and after an evidentiary hearing, the court vacated the temporary child support order. The court imposed no current or past child support on the grounds "the Court accepts the statements and stipulation of the parties regarding deviation from the child support guidelines."
¶4 In July 2012, the State brought an action to establish child support on behalf of Mother. In its petition, the State sought establishment of current child support; it did not request an order regarding any alleged past or retroactive child support. The court held an evidentiary hearing in October 2012. After the hearing, the court found there was a substantial and continuing change in the circumstances of the parties warranting modification of the child support from zero support, and the court ordered Father to pay Mother current child support in the amount of $289 per month. Mother filed a timely notice of appeal.
The court rendered its decision by means of an unsigned minute entry order on December 11, 2012. On December 26, 2012, the State filed a Notice of Lodging of Proposed Order. Mother filed her notice of appeal on December 27, 2012, and the court signed the final judgment on January 10, 2013. Because there were no motions pending at the time Mother filed her notice of appeal, and the only matter that was pending was merely the court's ministerial act of signing and entering the judgment, we conclude we have jurisdiction. See Barassi v. Matison, 130 Ariz. 418, 422, 636 P.2d 1200, 1204 (1981) (recognizing this court has jurisdiction over a prematurely filed notice of appeal where at the time it was filed all that was pending was the formal entry of judgment); Smith v. Clean Elections Commission, 212 Ariz. 407, 415, ¶ 37, 132 P.3d 1187, 1195 (2006) (holding that a party may file a valid premature notice of appeal "after the trial court has made its final decision, but before it has entered a formal judgment, if no decision of the court could change and the only remaining task is merely ministerial."); Craig v. Craig, 227 Ariz. 105, 107, ¶ 13, 253 P.3d 624, 626 (2011) (same).
Discussion
¶5 Mother argues that the court erred by not granting her retroactive child support. In addition, Mother also challenges the court's order regarding current child support, claiming the court erred in its determination of her income and in its calculation of Father's parenting time adjustment.
¶6 "The decision to modify an award of child support rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and, absent an abuse of that discretion, will not be disturbed on appeal." Little v. Little, 193 Ariz. 518, 520, ¶ 5, 975 P.2d 108, 110 (1999). "An abuse of discretion exists when the record, viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court's decision, is 'devoid of competent evidence to support' the decision." Id. (internal citations omitted).
¶7 Based on the record before us, we are unable to conclude the family court abused its discretion. As a preliminary matter, Mother did not provide this court with a transcript of the evidentiary hearing. See ARCAP 11(b)(1) (placing responsibility on appellant to include necessary transcripts in the record on appeal); see also Kelly v. NationsBanc Mortg. Corp., 199 Ariz. 284, 287, ¶ 16, 17 P.3d 790, 793 (App. 2000) (holding unrepresented party to same standard expected of an attorney). Therefore, we presume the record supports the court's ruling. Ashton-Blair v. Merrill, 187 Ariz. 315, 317, 928 P.2d 1244, 1246 (App. 1996).
¶8 As for the issue of past child support, the State's petition did not seek past child support. Therefore, in the absence of a transcript showing otherwise, the issue of past support was not raised in the trial court, and is not properly before us on appeal. CDT Inc. v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig, CPA, P.C., 198 Ariz. 173, 178, ¶ 19, 7 P.3d 979, 984 (App. 2000) (this court considers only those arguments, theories, and facts properly presented in the trial court).
In declining to order past child support, the trial court stated that child support "was previously addressed in a prior proceeding." Because we lack any transcripts from the proceeding, it is unclear from this statement whether the parties agreed to no past support, or whether the court was referencing the original agreement of the parties to pay no child support.
--------
¶9 In regard to Mother's argument concerning the court's award of current child support, we find no error. The court held an evidentiary hearing to evaluate both parents' financial status and determine the appropriate amount of child support to be paid, as well as the parenting time exercised by Father. The court attributed Mother a gross monthly income of $5,200 for the purpose of calculating child support. The court based this finding on the exhibits introduced into evidence, the case history, the pleadings filed, and the testimony presented. Once again, because we were not provided with transcripts or the exhibits from the evidentiary hearing, we are unable to conclude the court abused its discretion.
Conclusion
¶10 For the reasons listed above, we affirm the family court's judgment regarding child support.