Opinion
1 CA-CV 21-0123 FC
11-30-2021
In re the Matter of: CAROLINE JANE WATSON, Petitioner/Appellant, v. MICAH WILLIAM JOHNSON, Respondent/Appellee.
Paul D. Nordini Attorney at Law, Scottsdale By Paul D. Nordini Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Nos. FC2018-006544 FC2018-051540 The Honorable Alison Bachus, Judge
Paul D. Nordini Attorney at Law, Scottsdale By Paul D. Nordini Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant
Judge David B. Gass delivered the decision of the court, in which Presiding Judge D. Steven Williams and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
GASS, JUDGE
¶1 Mother appeals the superior court's award of attorney fees to father. Because the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding father $45,000 in attorney fees, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 During the parents' "extremely contentious" two-year dissolution, mother attempted to mislead the superior court by creating fake text messages, drafting and then signing a letter in her medical provider's name, and trying to frame her attorney with surreptitious recordings. "She [also] failed to disclose her true financial income" to father, including hiding "hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts." Mother caused father "to incur unnecessary fees by repeatedly contacting [his] counsel, even when she was represented by one of her various attorneys." She caused father to incur additional attorney fees when she filed unnecessary and inappropriate motions, including "a motion to extend the disclosure deadline" and "a motion to continue trial." And mother took unsupportable positions at trial, for example asking "for half the equity" in father's sole and separate vacant lot without producing "credible evidence" to complete Drahos calculations.
¶3 Both parents requested attorney fees. The superior court found "both parties acted unreasonably" in the litigation, but mother had been "more unreasonable" than father. Ultimately, the superior court denied mother's fee request and awarded father $45,000 in attorney fees under A.R.S. § 25-324.A because of mother's unreasonable positions. Mother timely appealed. This court has jurisdiction under article VI, section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21.A.1, and 12-2101.A.1.
ANALYSIS
¶4 Mother argues the superior court abused its discretion when it awarded father $45,000 in attorney fees. More narrowly, mother argues the court erred when it did not tailor its award to include only those fees father incurred in responding to mother's unreasonable litigation positions. Though father failed to file an answering brief, we exercise our discretion and decline to treat his failure as a concession of error. See Nydam v. Crawford, 181 Ariz. 101, 101 (App. 1994).
¶5 "[T]he amount of attorney fees in a dissolution action is a matter left to the sound discretion of the [superior] court." Baum v. Baum, 120 Ariz. 140, 146 (App. 1978). This court reviews an award of fees under A.R.S. § 25-324 for an abuse of discretion. Mangan v. Mangan, 227 Ariz. 346, 352, ¶ 26 (App. 2011). An abuse of discretion is "an exercise of discretion which is manifestly unreasonable, exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons." Williams v. Williams, 166 Ariz. 260, 265 (App. 1990).
¶6 Here, father asked the superior court to award him over $400,000 in attorney fees for work performed in the parents' dissolution proceedings. The court found mother had more resources than father and mother had been "more unreasonable" than father. The court then listed six instances of mother's unreasonable litigation positions and ultimately awarded father $45,000 in attorney fees.
¶7 Section 25-324.A provides the superior court "may order a party to pay a reasonable amount" in attorney fees "after considering the financial resources of both parties and the reasonableness of the positions each party has taken throughout the litigation." (Emphasis added.) Contrary to mother's argument, the plain language of § 25-324.A does not require the attorney-fee award to cover only fees incurred responding to unreasonable positions. See Canon Sch. Dist. No. 50 v. W.E.S. Constr. Co., 177 Ariz. 526, 529 (1994) ("where the [statutory] language is plain and unambiguous, courts generally must follow the text as written"). Instead, once the superior court has considered the parties' financial resources and their reasonableness, § 25-324.A permits the superior court to award any "reasonable amount."
¶8 Considering the nature and relative complexity of the proceedings and mother's objectively unreasonable positions as outlined above, mother fails to show the superior court's $45,000 award was manifestly unreasonable. See In re Marriage of Williams, 219 Ariz. 546, 549, ¶ 12 (App. 2008) (applying an objective standard to § 25-324.A's reasonableness inquiry); see also Guard v. Maricopa County, 14 Ariz.App. 187, 188-89 (1971) (an appellant carries the burden to show the superior court erred). Indeed, mother only argues the award was untethered to her unreasonable positions, not that an award of $45,000 under these circumstances was unreasonable.
¶9 The superior court properly considered both parents' relative financial positions and the reasonableness of their litigation positions when it determined whether to award fees under § 25-324. It also properly considered and determined the reasonable amount of attorney fees in this case. Accordingly, the superior court did not abuse its discretion.
CONCLUSION
¶10 We affirm.