Background
Karl Edmark III and Berenika Szynklarz-Edmark married in 2018. In 2021, the probate court appointed a guardian and conservator for Husband following Wife’s petition. In 2023, Husband’s guardian filed a dissolution petition on his behalf. The parties entered into settlement agreements allocating property, including investment accounts and multiple LLCs holding real estate in Arizona, Idaho, and Washington. A consent decree was entered in November 2024 requiring the parties to sign documents assigning LLC interests within 30 days, with each party bearing their own attorney’s fees.
However, Wife repeatedly failed to sign the documents properly and on time. From November 2024 through March 2025, Husband’s counsel made multiple requests for signatures, resulting in five court hearings to resolve what the trial court characterized as an “uncomplicated matter.” Wife’s delays included returning improperly signed documents, disputing signature format requirements, unilaterally modifying the documents, and withholding her Washington attorney’s contact information—complications that necessitated communication through multiple layers of counsel rather than direct attorney-to-attorney coordination.
At the March 25, 2025 status conference, Husband requested attorney’s fees based on Wife’s post-settlement conduct and delays. The trial court awarded $16,888 in fees without providing written findings. Wife appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the attorney’s fee award under A.R.S. § 25-324(A). The court held that Wife’s conduct in delaying the signing and attempting to unilaterally modify the settlement documents constituted unreasonable legal positions justifying the fee award. The court noted that Wife’s conduct went beyond mere communication delays and reflected objectively unreasonable positions taken throughout the settlement implementation process.
The court rejected Wife’s argument that inadequate financial information precluded the award. Although no current financial affidavits were provided, the consent decree itself demonstrated that both parties received significant real estate and hundreds of thousands of dollars in property sales proceeds, providing sufficient evidence of Wife’s financial resources to pay the requested fees. The court emphasized that when a party claims insufficient financial evidence, she cannot benefit from her own failure to provide updated financial information in response to the fee application.
Applying the abuse-of-discretion standard, the court held that the trial judge—who observed the parties’ conduct firsthand—properly determined that Wife’s positions were unreasonable and warranted a fee award. The court also noted that it must still consider parties’ financial resources before awarding fees under § 25-324(A) based on unreasonableness, but the level of financial detail required is necessarily less stringent than when financial disparity is the primary basis for the award.
Key Takeaways
- Post-settlement conduct that unreasonably delays or impedes performance of settlement terms can support attorney’s fee awards under A.R.S. § 25-324(A) for the non-breaching party’s attorney’s fees incurred in securing compliance.
- Financial resources can be inferred from the terms of the settlement agreement itself when parties fail to provide current financial affidavits, provided the parties’ assets are documented in the decree.
- Unilateral modifications of agreed documents, withholding of necessary contact information, and excessive delays requiring multiple court hearings constitute unreasonable legal positions supporting fee awards.
- Trial courts have broad discretion to assess the reasonableness of a party’s conduct and positions, and appellate courts will defer to the trial judge’s observations unless clearly erroneous.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies that Arizona family law courts can impose attorney’s fee liability under § 25-324(A) not only for disputed issues at dissolution but also for unreasonable conduct during settlement implementation and performance. Practitioners should counsel clients that seemingly minor delays in signing settlement documents or disputes over procedural matters can accumulate into substantial fee liability if characterized as unreasonable positions. The ruling confirms that courts will hold parties accountable for obstruction tactics that force the other party to incur additional legal expenses to enforce agreed-upon settlements.
The opinion also has practical significance for settlement administration in complex cases involving multiple properties and jurisdictions. By awarding fees for the unnecessary complication caused by Wife’s failure to cooperate directly with the Washington attorney, the court incentivized parties to facilitate efficient document execution rather than using procedural obstacles or communication barriers as leverage during settlement implementation.