Background
Lorena Garcia and Dustin Earl DeFrates settled their dissolution case through a Rule 69 agreement. The agreement said Garcia would prepare the first drafts of the final Parenting Plan, Property Settlement Agreement, and Consent Decree, and that DeFrates would provide redlined comments within 14 calendar days of receiving “the draft documents” or waive objections.
Garcia sent the drafts at different times. DeFrates eventually sent redlines to all three documents on September 2, 2025—14 days after receiving the draft Consent Decree. Garcia nevertheless moved to enter her versions, arguing that he had missed separate 14-day deadlines for earlier drafts. The superior court found waiver, entered a decree substantially in Garcia’s form, and summarily denied post-judgment relief.
The Court’s Holding
The Arizona Court of Appeals vacated the decree and remanded. It held that the agreement’s reference to “the draft documents” was ambiguous: it could reasonably mean that the response period began upon receipt of the complete set of settlement documents, as DeFrates argued, or that separate response periods applied as each document arrived, as Garcia argued.
The parties’ conduct did not resolve that ambiguity. Although Garcia at times sought separate responses, she did not invoke or enforce the 14-day contractual deadline while drafts were being exchanged. Because Garcia drafted the agreement and the parties’ intent could not otherwise be determined, the court construed the deadline against her. DeFrates’ deadline began when he received the Consent Decree on August 19, and his September 2 response was timely.
Key Takeaways
- A Rule 69 settlement agreement is interpreted under ordinary contract principles.
- An ambiguous deadline provision may be construed against the party that drafted it when extrinsic evidence does not establish intent.
- A court cannot uphold a waiver-based decree by assuming it silently made an unexpressed merits determination.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the need for precise drafting when settlement documents will be circulated in stages. Parties should specify whether comment deadlines run separately for each document or only after delivery of a complete package.
Because the superior court rested its decree solely on waiver, the appellate court did not decide which party’s proposed documents better reflected the settlement terms. Further proceedings are required to enter a decree consistent with the agreement.