The Short Answer

The short answer to the question of whether you can request to continue a divorce trial in Arizona to retain an attorney is that you can certainly request to continue a divorce trial in Arizona to enable you to hire an attorney but that the court is not required to continue that trial and that denial may not be overturned on appeal.

Read about the Arizona Court of Appeals decision in the case of Ossman vs. Talib where a judge’s denial of a request to continue a divorce trial to enable one of the spouses to hire a divorce attorney was not overturned on appeal.

The Long Answer

The Arizona Court of Appeals addressed a trial court’s denial of a request to continue a divorce trial in Arizona to retain an attorney in a memorandum decision in the case of Ossman vs. Talib. What followed was an appeal from a dissolution decree. The following is that Court of Appeals decision.

The Court of Appeals stated the appellant challenges the superior court’s denial of his motion to continue trial after his counsel’s late-stage withdrawal, and he contends that he was denied due process because of his pro per appearance at the trial.

The Court of Appeals stated the appellant also challenges the propriety of the decree’s property-division, spousal maintenance, and attorneys fees awards. The Court of Appeals stated we affirm. The court acted within its discretion when it declined to continue the trial, and we perceive no procedural irregularities that deprived the appellant of a fair opportunity to present his case. Further, the evidence presented at the trial reasonably supported the court’s substantive orders. In December 2013, Ms. Ossman (“Wife”) filed a petition for dissolution of her marriage to Mr. Talib (“Husband”). The court set the matter for trial and entered temporary orders requiring Husband to pay Wife $1,000 per month in child support and $6,000 per month in spousal maintenance.

The Court of Appeals stated in August 2015, after several trial continuances, the court set trial for December 10, 2015. On November 11, 2015, Husband’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw, representing that Husband had substantially failed to pay her and that the attorney-client relationship had been compromised. At a contempt hearing two days later, which Husband attended, counsel stated at the outset that she could not proceed in good faith because Husband had failed to provide her the information relevant to the subject of the hearing and “the attorney-client relationship is deteriorated.”

The Court of Appeals stated after the court noted the December 10 trial date and Wife withdrew her motion for a change of judge, the court indicated that it was “inclined to grant [counsel]’s motion to withdraw, but I’m planning on affirming a trial date.” Husband’s counsel responded that she had “discussed this with my client,” and knew that he had “consulted with other counsel and the other lawyer will not be taking the case if this matter went to trial on December 18th.” The court then affirmed the December 10 trial date and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw.  Husband made no comment on counsel’s representations or the court’s ruling. Husband thereafter proceeded, on his own behalf, to present argument and testify regarding the contempt issue.

The Court of Appeals stated Wife filed a pretrial statement on December 4th. On December 7th, Husband filed a pro per motion to continue the trial for at least ninety days based on “the exigent circumstance” of his counsel’s recent withdrawal. Husband asserted that his former counsel retained his file, including documents he intended to use as trial exhibits, and that he required the assistance of counsel in view of the case’s complex financial and business-valuation issues.

The Court of Appeals stated the court denied Husband’s motion to continue, and Husband appeared pro per at the December 10th trial. Husband was given the opportunity to testify, present exhibits, conduct cross-examination, and make opening and closing arguments. The evidence at trial established the following relevant facts. Husband and Wife married in 2002, had three children together, and separated in early 2011 (according to Wife) or in 2012 (according to Husband).

The Court of Appeals then stated in 2009, Husband started a medical-transportation business, Valley MedTrans (“VMT”), located on real property purchased during the marriage by Husband and Wife’s limited-liability company, 432 E. Southern, LLC (“the LLC”). The LLC later sold the real property and purchased a new parcel (“the Property”) to which VMT moved. Part of the sale proceeds was used to purchase, renovate, and make mortgage payments on the Property; the remainder of the proceeds were transferred to VMT’s main, payroll, and operating accounts.

The Court of Appeals stated Husband obtained appraisals valuing VMT at approximately $1,174,000 and the Property at approximately $350,000, and the parties agreed that at the time of trial the LLC’s equity in the Property was approximately $238,000. The parties further agreed that one of them should buy out the other’s interest in VMT for $600,000. As the sole officer of VMT, Husband received annual compensation and other distributions totaling seven hundred thousand dollars. Husband also made substantial withdrawals from an automotive company registered in his significant other’s name. Husband precluded Wife from participating in any business matters, and he exercised sole direct control over all funds. According to Wife, Husband did not even inform her that they had owned and sold VMT’s original location.

The Court of Appeals stated Wife further claimed that Husband never told her about $300,000 that he caused VMT to transfer in late 2011 and 2014 to overseas accounts in his name, and she professed knowledge of only one $50,000 expenditure for a foreign apartment. Husband testified that the transfers were for failed investments in an apartment in Egypt and a peanut farm in Sudan, and that Wife knew of the investments. Wife, who had trained as a civil engineer in Sudan, worked in a daycare from mid-2006 to late 2009 but stopped when Husband asked her to stay home with the parties’ children and pursue her education. At the time of trial, Wife was unemployed and without savings.

The Court of Appeals stated She rented a home, used a VMT vehicle and gas card for transportation, and relied on credit cards that were near their limit. She testified that she could not transfer her foreign civil-engineering background to this country without considerable additional schooling, and she expressed her intent to obtain a radiology degree from a community college in two years.

The Court of Appeals then stated the superior court entered a decree dissolving the parties’ marriage. The court treated VMT, the LLC, and the Property as community property found that Husband’s overseas transfers had wasted $300,000 of VMT funds, and ordered a substantially equal division of community property accounting for the waste. The court awarded Husband all interest in VMT and awarded Wife all interest in the LLC and the Property, plus $631,000. The court arrived at that award by: (1) crediting Wife with $150,000 for her equal share of the wasted funds; (2) crediting Wife with $600,000 for her equal share of VMT; and (3) crediting Husband with $119,000 for his equal share in the Property’s equity.

The Court of Appeals stated the court ordered Husband to pay Wife spousal maintenance in the amount of $4,000 per month for 48 months. The court further ordered Husband to pay a portion of Wife’s reasonable attorney’s fees, later quantified as approximately $17,500, which represented one-third of the fees she owed to the second of the two attorneys she had hired to represent her in the matter. Husband filed timely and procedurally proper notices of appeal from the dissolution decree and the attorneys’ fees judgment. We consolidated the appeals. At the same time, in view of Husband’s assertion that his former counsel deprived him access to exhibits for use at trial, we suspended the appeals and revested jurisdiction in the superior court to conduct further proceedings regarding the alleged deprivation. After holding an evidentiary hearing, the superior court found that Husband’s former counsel had electronically transmitted every document in Husband’s file to him.

Arizona Divorce Attorney Withdraws from the Case Shortly Before Trial

The Court of Appeals stated Husband challenges the superior court’s denial of his motion to continue the trial. We discern no reversible error. Husband first contends that a continuance was warranted because the court allowed his counsel to withdraw shortly before trial without “sufficient compliance with the provisions of A.R.F.L.P. Rules 9.A.2.b and 9.A.2.c” and “mention [of] trial or pretrial deadlines.” ARFLP (“Rule”) 9(A)(2)(b) requires an attorney who unilaterally seeks to withdraw to certify in writing that a locatable client has been given written notice of the case’s status, including upcoming court dates. Counsel’s motion to withdraw was deficient in that respect.

The Court of Appeals stated but in view of counsel’s oral avowals and the court’s express affirmance of the trial date at the contempt hearing, in Husband’s presence, the written motion’s deficiency was harmless. And though subsection (1) of Rule 9(A)(2)(c) limits post-trial setting withdrawals to circumstances where the client or a substituting attorney avers preparedness for trial, subsection (2) of that Rule alternatively provides for post-trial-setting withdrawals based simply on a finding of good cause for withdrawal. Here, counsel was permitted to withdraw under subsection (2). Accordingly, there was no requirement that Husband — who made no objection at the contempt hearing to the proposed withdrawal or the trial date — avow that he was prepared for trial.

The Court of Appeals stated that is not to say that a last-minute good-cause withdrawal cannot provide grounds for a continuance. Under Rule 77(C)(1), the court may continue a set trial date “upon written motion setting forth sufficient grounds and a good cause, or as otherwise ordered by the court.” The court has the discretion to determine whether a continuance is warranted under the good-cause standard. Cf. Ornelas v. Fry, 151 Ariz. 324, 329 (App. 1986) (recognizing court’s discretion with respect to motions to continue in a civil case).

The Court of Appeals stated Husband contends that his counsel’s withdrawal constituted good cause for a continuance because it left him with no adequate opportunity to obtain a copy of his file or procure the assistance of new counsel. But the court found that Husband had copies of all relevant documents and that finding is supported by the record — at the evidentiary hearing in the supplemental proceedings, the court received as evidence a copy of a December 2, 2015, letter sent to Husband by his former counsel in which counsel advised Husband that he had been provided copies of everything in his file and that he could obtain hard or original copies on request.

The Court of Appeals stated it cannot say that the court abused its discretion by determining that counsel’s withdrawal (to which Husband voiced no objection even after the court stated its intent to affirm the trial date) did not deprive Husband of the ability to make adequate preparations for the already much-delayed trial set for December 10. Husband was not, as he contends, deprived due process based on his stated inability to engage new counsel in the month leading up to the trial.

The Court of Appeals stated Husband further contends that because he appeared pro per, the proceedings were conducted in a manner that deprived him of due process. We observe no impropriety in the proceedings. The record demonstrates that Husband was given an adequate and fair opportunity to present his case. Contrary to his contention, the fact that Wife filed an individual pretrial statement did not prevent him from providing a pretrial statement. See Rule 77(C)(1) (contemplating joint or separate pretrial statements).

The Court of Appeals stated further, nothing in the record supports Husband’s contention that he was not allowed to object to Wife’s exhibits. And to the extent that Husband complains of leading questions, a lack of opportunity to conduct re-cross examination after the court asked questions, and the presence of Wife’s expert in the courtroom, he raised no objections at trial and Rule 2(B)(1) contemplates flexibility with respect to the application of evidentiary rules in family-law cases.

The Court of Appeals then stated Husband finally contends that Wife’s expert must not have been sworn because the trial transcript describes him only as having been “previously sworn” and does not reflect any initial swearing-in. Setting aside the facts that the court’s minute entry similarly describes the expert as having been previously sworn, and that Husband has offered no evidence to support his theory to the contrary, we hold that the expert’s testimony is immaterial to the appeal. The only non-cumulative testimony provided by the expert was his opinion that Husband had overpaid himself for running VMT and that the court needed to take the overpayment into consideration when allocating marital assets. The superior court expressly declined to adopt that opinion, to Husband’s benefit.

The Court of Appeals stated Husband next challenges the superior court’s disposition of the parties’ marital property under A.R.S. § 25-318. As an initial matter, the Court of Appeals stated we note that Husband does not dispute that VMT, the LLC, and the Property were subject to allocation under § 25-318 Section 25-318(A) provides that the court must “divide the community, joint tenancy and other property held in common equitably, though not necessarily in kind, without regard to marital misconduct.”

The Court of Appeals stated “In apportioning community property between the parties at dissolution, the superior court has broad discretion to achieve an equitable division, and we will not disturb its allocation absent an abuse of discretion.” Boncoskey v. Boncoskey, 216 Ariz. 448, 451 (App. 2007). The Court of Appeals then state “[W]e consider the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the superior court’s ruling and will sustain the ruling if it is reasonably supported by the evidence.” The Court of Appeals Stated We discern no abuse of discretion here.

The Court of Appeals stated that first, it rejects Husband’s contention that the court abused its discretion by finding waste. Section 25-318(C) permits the court to consider “excessive or abnormal expenditures, destruction, concealment or fraudulent disposition of community, joint tenancy and other property held in common” when allocating community property. Once the spouse alleging waste has presented a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the other spouse to rebut the showing of waste by providing that the expenditures benefitted the community. Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, 193 Ariz. 343, 346–47 (App. 1998). If the prima facie case is not rebutted, the court should add the value of the dissipated property to the value of the existing marital property for purposes of the allocation calculus. See Martin v. Martin, 156 Ariz. 452, 458 (1988).

The Court of Appeals stated that here, Wife presented evidence that after the parties separated, Husband transferred $300,000 of VMT’s funds to his solely held overseas accounts without her knowledge. Wife’s evidence was sufficient to make a prima facie case of waste. Husband contends that he rebutted that evidence by his testimony that the funds were used with Wife’s knowledge to invest in an apartment and a farm. But Husband presented no evidence to substantiate his claims, and his credibility was for the court to decide. See Gutierrez, 193 Ariz. at 347.

The Court of Appeals stated it will next address Husband’s contention that by awarding VMT to him and its premises to Wife, the court created the undesirable result of further entangling the parties’ lives. But the fact that Husband disagrees with the prudence of the property allocation’s structure does not describe abuse of discretion. The court was statutorily obligated to make an equitable property division, and it did so. Husband next challenges the spousal maintenance award. Section 25-319(A) provides that the court may award spousal maintenance if the spouse seeking maintenance either:

(1) lacks sufficient property, including property, apportioned to him or her, to provide for his or her reasonable needs;

(2) is unable to be self-sufficient through appropriate employment;

(3) contributed to the other spouse’s educational opportunities; or

(4) is of an age that may preclude the possibility of gaining employment adequate to be self-sufficient, and the marriage was of long duration.

The Court of Appeals stated that Section 25-319(B) provides that once the court determines that an award of spousal maintenance is appropriate, it must consider all relevant factors, including those set forth in the statute, to determine the appropriate amount and duration of the award. The Court of Appeals then stated we review an award of spousal maintenance for abuse of discretion, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the award. Gutierrez, 193 Ariz. at 348. The Court of Appeals then stated we will affirm the award if there is any reasonable evidence to support it. Husband contends that Wife’s receipt of the Property means that she is ineligible for spousal maintenance because the Property gives her sufficient resources to provide for her reasonable needs. Husband explains that because Wife was made his landlord, she thereby has “a significant additional income source” that she may have, in bad faith, exercised in a manner that causes him to incur “significant additional monthly expense.”

The Court of Appeals further stated but Husband expressly waived any objection to Wife’s spousal maintenance eligibility at trial — he stated, “I don’t mind paying her spousal maintenance” and contested only the amount and duration of the award she requested. The Court of Appeals then stated we further note that the parties presented no evidence at trial to support Husband’s speculation regarding the “income shift” effect of the property division. Finally, we observe that the court’s findings under § 25-319(B) provide adequate support for a determination of eligibility under § 25-319(A)(2).

The Court of Appeals stated we further find no abuse of discretion in the court’s determination of the award’s amount and duration. The court made detailed, factually supported findings regarding the factors set forth in § 25- 319(B). In view of those findings, particularly those regarding the parties’ respective resources, education status, use of community assets, and employability, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion by awarding Wife spousal maintenance of $4,000 per month for 48 months. Husband finally challenges the award of attorney’s fees to Wife. As an initial matter, we note that though Husband filed a second notice of appeal from the judgment quantifying the fee award, his argument on appeal is limited to the court’s determination that a fee award was justified under A.R.S. § 25-324(A). He raises no separate challenge to the amount of the award.

The Court of Appeals stated we review the award for abuse of discretion. Granville v. Dodge, 195 Ariz. 119, 131 (App. 1999). Section 25-324(A) provides that “[t]he court from time to time, after considering the financial resources of both parties and the reasonableness of the positions each party has taken throughout the proceedings, may order a party to pay a reasonable amount to the other party for the costs and expenses of maintaining or defending any proceeding under this chapter [regarding marriage dissolution].” Here, the court found that Husband had “considerably more resources available” and had acted unreasonably in the litigation “by his delays in complying with discovery requests as well as transferring large amounts of money overseas in violation of the preliminary injunction.”

The Court of Appeals stated Husband first challenges the court’s finding regarding the parties’ relative financial resources. He contends that the court failed to account for the orders dividing the marital property and imposing spousal maintenance and child-support obligations on Husband. But the court was well aware of its own orders, and Wife presented evidence that Husband had received substantial compensation from VMT for years, whereas Wife had no job or savings, and at the time of trial relied largely on credit to meet her needs. On this record, we discern no abuse of discretion in the court’s determination that there was a substantial disparity in the parties’ financial resources even in view of the decree’s other orders.

The Court of Appeals then stated Husband next challenges the court’s finding regarding the reasonableness of the parties’ conduct. First, Husband contends that the finding was factually incorrect because his overseas transfers predated the divorce. Husband also makes no argument regarding the superior court’s determination that fees were justified under A.R.S. § 25-324(B). But though the evidence established that some transfer activity predated the December 2013 dissolution petition and accompanying injunction, other transfer activity occurred after the litigation commenced.

The Court of Appeals stated next, Husband contends that the court received no evidence at trial to support its finding regarding his conduct during discovery. But “[i]t is proper for a court to take judicial notice of its own records,” In re Sabino R., 198 Ariz. 424, 425 (App. 2000), and the record supports the finding that Husband unreasonably failed to comply timely with discovery requests. Husband finally contends that the court failed to consider Wife’s unreasonableness because it made no findings regarding her conduct. The Court of Appeals stated that but because Husband did not request that the court make findings, we assign no error to the court’s failure to expressly state its findings regarding Wife’s conduct. See Myrick v. Maloney, 235 Ariz. 491, 494–95 (App. 2014).

The Court of Appeals stated the court had ample evidence upon which to assess Wife’s relative reasonableness, and its assignment of unreasonableness to Husband alone was sufficient to constitute a finding regarding Wife’s conduct. The Court of Appeals stated we conclude that the court’s decision to award attorney’s fees to Wife was sufficiently supported by the evidence and that the court, therefore, acted within its discretion. The Court of Appeals stated we affirm for the reasons set forth above. In the exercise of our discretion, we hold that Wife may recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs on appeal upon compliance with ARCAP 21. We deny Husband’s request for fees and costs on appeal.

If you have questions about the request to continue divorce trial to hire an attorney in an Arizona case, you should seriously consider contacting the attorneys at Hildebrand Law, PC. Our Arizona divorce and family law attorneys have decades of combined experience successfully representing clients in divorce and family law cases.

Our family law firm has earned numerous awards such as US News and World Reports Best Arizona Family Law Firm, US News and World Report Best Divorce Attorneys, “Best of the Valley” by Arizona Foothills readers, and “Best Arizona Divorce Law Firms” by North Scottsdale Magazine.

Call us today at (480)305-8300 or reach out to us through our appointment scheduling form to schedule your personalized consultation and turn your Arizona divorce or family law case around today.

More Articles About Divorce in Arizona

• PHANTOM INCOME IN A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• BUYING A HOUSE DURING A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• INTERNATIONAL DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• PROTECT YOURSELF DURING A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• MOVING OUT OF THE HOUSE DURING A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• ASKING YOUR SPOUSE FOR A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• WHAT HAPPENS TO EMBRYOS IN A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• WHAT SHOULD I DO BEFORE FILING FOR DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• HOW SHOULD A MAN PREPARE FOR DIVORCE
• LATE DISCLOSURE OF EXPERT WITNESS REPORTS IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE
• CAN YOU SELL PROPERTY BEFORE A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• HOW TO ASK YOUR SPOUSE FOR A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• HOW DIVORCE CAN IMPACT SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS
• IS IT SMART TO BUY A HOUSE AFTER A DIVORCE
• WHEN A DIVORCE IS FINAL IN ARIZONA
• EFFECT OF CHANGING JUDGES DURING A DIVORCE
• FAILURE TO SIGN VERIFICATION OF DIVORCE FORM IN ARIZONA
• ENFORCING A PROMISE IN A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• SELLING A HOUSE DURING A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• DIVORCING A NARCISSIST IN ARIZONA
• CAN A JUDGE REJECT A DIVORCE SETTLEMENT IN ARIZONA
• NARCISSIST DIVORCE ADVICE IN ARIZONA
• HOW TO WORK EFFECTIVELY WITH AN ATTORNEY WHEN YOU DIVORCE A NARCISSIST
• DIVORCE TIPS IN ARIZONA
• DIVIDING CONTINGENCY FEES IN A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• TIPS ON HIRING A DIVORCE LAWYER
• AWARD OF MONEY IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE
• DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A COMPLETE AND PARTIAL DIVORCE AGREEMENT
• WHAT TO DO IF YOUR SPOUSE IS HIDING ASSETS IN A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• INTEREST ON A JUDGMENT IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE
• INTEREST ON A JUDGMENT IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE DECREE
• MISSED COURT DATE IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE
• WHAT HAPPENS IF SOMEONE LIES IN A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• VALUING A HOUSE DURING A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• TRAUMATIC STRESS AND DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• TAXES AND DIVORCE SETTLEMENTS IN ARIZONA
• STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON A DIVORCE DECREE IN ARIZONA
• AUTHORITY OF DIVORCE COURTS TO REQUIRE A RELIGIOUS DIVORCE
• FAILURE TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF THE VALUE OF PROPERTY IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE
• VALUING A PENSION PLAN IN A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• ENFORCING A PREMARITAL AGREEMENT IN A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• CHANGING POSITIONS DURING A DIVORCE TRIAL IN ARIZONA
• FALSE ACCUSATIONS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE
• DENIAL OF SPOUSAL SUPPORT AS A SANCTION IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE
• VALIDITY OF A MARRIAGE IN ARIZONA WHEN THE MARRIAGE LICENSE IS NOT FILED
• WAIVER OF DIVORCE MEDIATION CONFIDENTIALITY IN ARIZONA
• GUIDE TO DIVORCE FOR MEN
• WHAT TO DO WHEN SERVED WITH DIVORCE PAPERS
• WHAT SHOULD I DO BEFORE FILING DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• WHAT REASONS DO I NEED TO OBTAIN A DIVORCE IN A COVENANT MARRIAGE IN ARIZONA
• WHAT IS A TEMPORARY ORDERS HEARING IN ARIZONA
• WHAT IS A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE
• WHAT IS A FAMILY LAW MASTER IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE CASE
• WHAT IS A DEFAULT DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• THE DEFINITIVE GUIDE TO THE 8 STEPS OF THE ARIZONA DIVORCE PROCESS
• WHAT IS A COVENANT MARRIAGE IN ARIZONA
• WHAT HAPPENS IF MY DIVORCE CASE GOES TO TRIAL IN ARIZONA
• WHAT HAPPENS AT A TEMPORARY ORDERS HEARING IN ARIZONA
• WHAT HAPPENS AT A RESOLUTION MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE IN ARIZONA
• WHAT DOES IT MEAN WHEN YOUR DIVORCE CASE IS ON THE INACTIVE CALENDAR
• STOP AN ARIZONA DIVORCE
• SOCIAL MEDIA EVIDENCE IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE
• SHOULD I KEEP THE HOUSE IN A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• 7 DOCUMENTS YOU NEED TO FILE FOR DIVORCE ARIZONA
• SERVING DIVORCE PAPERS BY PUBLICATION IN ARIZONA
• WHAT DO I DO IF I AM SERVED WITH DIVORCE PAPERS
• SELLING COMMUNITY PROPERTY DURING A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• SEALING COURT RECORDS IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE
• RUNNING OUT OF TIME DURING A FAMILY LAW TRIAL IN ARIZONA
• HOW TO TELL IF YOUR SPOUSE IS HIDING ASSETS IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE
• REASONS TO FILE FOR DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• QUICK DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• PARENTING CLASS DURING A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• WHAT IS A NO FAULT DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• MODIFYING A DIVORCE DECREE IN ARIZONA
• MISLED INTO SIGNING A DIVORCE SETTLEMENT IN ARIZONA
• MERGER OR INCORPORATION OF A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN ARIZONA
• FINDING THE RIGHT DIVORCE ATTORNEY: SECURE THE BEST REPRESENTATION FOR YOUR CASE
• MARITAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS IN ARIZONA
• UNCONTESTED DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• HOW TO OBTAIN A DIVORCE AFTER A LEGAL SEPARATION IN ARIZONA
• HOW TO GET AN AMICABLE DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• SAME SEX DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• UNREASONABLE DELAY IN CONTESTING PATERNITY IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE
• HOW TO GET A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA WHEN YOU CANNOT FIND OR LOCATE YOUR SPOUSE
• HOW DO I FIND A GOOD DIVORCE ATTORNEY IN ARIZONA
• HOW TO APPEAL A DIVORCE DECREE IN ARIZONA
• HOW MUCH DOES A DIVORCE COST IN ARIZONA
• HOW LONG DOES AN UNCONTESTED DIVORCE TAKE IN ARIZONA
• HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO GET TEMPORARY ORDERS IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE CASE
• HOW LONG DOES A CONTESTED DIVORCE CASE TAKE IN ARIZONA
• HOW LONG DO YOU HAVE TO BE SEPARATED BEFORE DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• HOW IS A DIVORCE FINALIZED IN ARIZONA
• HIGH NET WORTH DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• HIGH CONFLICT DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• HIGH ASSET DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• FAILURE TO INCLUDE AN ISSUE IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE
• DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• DO ARIZONA COURTS OFFER SERVICES TO SAVE A MARRIAGE
• DIVORCE STATISTICS IN ARIZONA
• DIVORCE IN ARIZONA WITHOUT CHILDREN
• DIVORCE COURT JURISDICTION ARISES FROM STATUTES IN ARIZONA
• DIVORCE AND CHILDREN IN ARIZONA
• DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE IN ARIZONA: STEPS TO DISSOLVE A MARRIAGE
• DISMISSAL OF AN APPEAL FOR NOT OBEYING ORDERS IN A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• CUSTODY OF THE FAMILY PET IN A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• COPING WITH DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• CAN I CONVERT MY MARRIAGE TO A COVENANT MARRIAGE
• CONCILIATION COURT SERVICES IN ARIZONA
• COMPLEX DIVORCE CASES IN ARIZONA
• COLLEGE EXPENSES AFTER DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• CHANGE TO MAIDEN NAME AFTER DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• CAN MY SPOUSE BE ORDERED TO PAY MY ATTORNEY FEES
• CAN I STOP A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA IF I CHANGE MY MIND
• CAN I REPRESENT MYSELF IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE CASE
• ARIZONA MILITARY DIVORCE LAWS: THE 10/10 RULE, FINANCIAL SUPPORT AND MORE
• ARIZONA DIVORCE DEBT
• ARE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENTS ENFORCEABLE IN ARIZONA
• EFFECTS OF DIVORCE ON CHILDREN
• ADVANTAGE OF FILING FOR DIVORCE FIRST IN ARIZONA
• WHAT IS ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN ARIZONA
• FIVE THINGS TO DO TO PREPARE FOR DIVORCE MEDIATION IN ARIZONA
• APPEALING AN ARBITRATION AWARD IN A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• EIGHT WAYS YOUR SPOUSE CAN HIDE THEIR INCOME BEFORE DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• FAILURE TO INCLUDE AN ISSUE IN A PRETRIAL STATEMENT IN ARIZONA
• THE VALUATION OF A LAW PRACTICE IN A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• OPENING BRIEF IN AN ARIZONA FAMILY LAW APPEAL
• WHEN IS MEDIATION A GOOD IDEA
• MENTAL ILLNESS AND THE FAMILY COURT SYSTEM IN ARIZONA
• DIVORCE IN ARIZONA: SIX THINGS TO KNOW ABOUT A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• WHAT DOCTORS SHOULD KNOW ABOUT DIVIDING ASSETS IN A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• WHAT IS A RULE 69 AGREEMENT IN ARIZONA
• UPDATING YOUR ESTATE PLAN FOLLOWING A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• THE RISING TREND OF GREY DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• THE DEFINITIVE GUIDE TO DEALING WITH A SURPRISE DIVORCE
• WHAT TO DO IF YOUR WIFE OR HUSBAND WANTS A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• EIGHT FINANCIAL MISTAKES TO AVOID WHEN GOING THROUGH A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• REIMBURSEMENT FOR PAYING COMMUNITY BILLS IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE
• EFFECT OF FILING AN AFFIDAVIT OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION WITH THE COURT IN ARIZONA
• DIVORCE SUCKS: DECIDING TO DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• DOMICILE AND RESIDENCY RULES IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE
• SERVICE BY EMAIL IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE
• LODGING A CONSENT DECREE IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE
• SANCTIONS FOR FILING FRIVOLOUS DOCUMENTS IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE
• FILING A LATE APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEY FEES IN AN ARIZONA FAMILY LAW CASE
• DISMISSAL OF AN INTERNATIONAL DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• WHEN DIVORCE IS THE RIGHT CHOICE IN ARIZONA
• IS DIVORCE THE BEST OPTION IN ARIZONA
• WHEN YOU SHOULD FILE FOR BANKRUPTCY BEFORE A DIVORCE
• HOW TO PRESERVE CLAIMS FOR AN ARIZONA FAMILY LAW APPEAL
• BLAMING YOUR DIVORCE ATTORNEY CAN WAIVE THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE
• MANDATORY SANCTIONS IN AN ARIZONA FAMILY LAW CASE
• JUDGE FAILING TO RULE ON A DIVORCE ISSUE IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE
• HOW TO FIX AN ERROR IN A FAMILY LAW CASE IN ARIZONA
• LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE IN A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• HEARING TO CONTEST A RULE 69 AGREEMENT IN ARIZONA
• CORRECTING A MISTAKE IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE DECREE
• CHANGING ATTORNEYS DURING A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• THE EFFECT OF THE 2017 TAX BILL ON DIVORCE
• SAVE MONEY ON DIVORCE ATTORNEY FEES IN ARIZONA
• QUESTIONS TO ASK A DIVORCE LAWYER IN ARIZONA
• OPTIONS FOR BUSINESS OWNERS GOING THROUGH A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• WHAT TO DO DURING A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• COLLECTING ATTORNEY FEES ON A JUDGMENT IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE
• FOR THE NEWLY DIVORCED
• DIVORCING A DRUG ADDICT IN ARIZONA
• DIVORCING AN ALCOHOLIC IN ARIZONA
• DUTY OF CANDOR IN A DEFAULT DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• SETTING ASIDE OR MODIFYING A DIVORCE DECREE IN ARIZONA
• IMPORTANCE OF CONSULTING A FINANCIAL PLANNER BEFORE A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• SOMATIC SYMPTOM DISORDER IN A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• DEALING WITH A LIAR IN A DIVORCE
• PARANOID PERSONALITY DISORDER IN A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• PERSONALITY DISORDERS IN A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• DISSOCIATIVE DISORDER AND DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• OBSESSIVE COMPULSIVE PERSONALITY DISORDER AND DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• COPING WITH ANXIETY DURING A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• DIVORCING A DEPRESSED SPOUSE IN ARIZONA
• DIVORCING A PSYCHOPATH IN ARIZONA
• DIVORCING SOMEONE WITH A MENTAL ILLNESS IN ARIZONA
• DIVORCING A BIPOLAR SPOUSE IN ARIZONA
• PROBLEMS WITH AGGRESSIVE DIVORCE LAWYERS IN ARIZONA
• HOW TO DEAL WITH AN AGGRESSIVE DIVORCE LAWYER IN ARIZONA
• DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AN ANNULMENT AND DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• WHEN MEDIATION IS A BAD IDEA
• SITUATIONS BEST FOR DIVORCE MEDIATION IN ARIZONA
• ALTERNATIVES TO DIVORCE AND LEGAL SEPARATION IN ARIZONA
• CONTESTED VERSUS UNCONTESTED DIVORCES IN ARIZONA
• ATTORNEY’S CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE
• TIME LIMIT TO ENFORCE A DIVORCE DECREE IN ARIZONA
• SANCTIONS AGAINST AN ATTORNEY FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE IN ARIZONA
• ESTABLISHING EXTRINSIC FRAUD IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE
• UNENFORCEABLE PROVISIONS IN A MARITAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
• CORROBORATION REQUIRED IN AN ARIZONA FAULT DIVORCE
• ENFORCING AN UNSIGNED DIVORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
• CHANGING JUDGES IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE
• JURISDICTION OVER PROCEDURAL ISSUES IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE
• APPEALING TEMPORARY ORDERS IN ARIZONA
• HOW TO DEAL WITH A HOSTILE PARENT IN ARIZONA
• SANCTIONS FOR FILING A MOTION TO COMPEL LATE DISCOVERY IN ARIZONA
• DISQUALIFICATION OF AN ATTORNEY IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE
• FAILURE TO FILE A MARRIAGE LICENSE IN ARIZONA
• LATE DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE IN AN ARIZONA DIVORCE CASE
• PROTECTING CHILDREN FROM A HOSTILE PARENT DURING A DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• HOW DIVORCE AFFECTS CHILDREN IN ARIZONA
• ARIZONA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION MUST RECOGNIZE A COURT’S RULING ON MARITAL STATUS
• DOES DEATH OF A SPOUSE PREVENT A JUDGE FROM ISSUING A DIVORCE DECREE IN ARIZONA
• HOW PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS CAN AFFECT YOUR MARITAL RELATIONSHIP
• RATIFICATION OF A VOIDABLE MARRIAGE IN ARIZONA
• HOW TO PREPARE FOR DIVORCE MEDIATION IN ARIZONA
• WHY MEDIATE YOUR DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• ARIZONA DIVORCE LAW FAQ
• COLLABORATIVE DIVORCE: EXPLORING THE BENEFITS OF COLLABORATIVE DIVORCE IN ARIZONA
• CHANGE OF JUDGE AFTER A SPECIAL ACTION APPEAL IN ARIZONA
• DIVORCE MEDIATION IN ARIZONA: HOW TO SIMPLIFY YOUR DIVORCE
• ARIZONA RULE OF FAMILY LAW PROCEDURE 2B
• ARIZONA ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE LAWS