Background
After dissolving their marriage, Spencer Bybee and Uma Irene Magda Avalos Ayon y Cienfuegos shared joint legal decision-making and equal parenting time for their children. Mother petitioned to prevent their child, J.B., from traveling to Spain for school and soccer training.
At the temporary-orders hearing, the superior court took no testimony and concluded Mother had materially misrepresented or omitted facts about the planned schooling. It declined to proceed with the hearing, ordered Mother to pay Father $4,000, described in the written order as tuition costs, and later awarded Father $6,510 in attorney fees.
The Court’s Holding
The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court except for the $4,000 tuition award and the $6,510 fee award. Mother waived several challenges by not raising them in superior court, including objections to Father’s untimely exhibits and to unsworn statements about the parties’ agreement to share travel and tuition expenses. Her challenge to the underlying relocation ruling was moot because the planned school period had passed and J.B. was 18.
But the record did not reasonably support the $4,000 amount identified as tuition: Father’s exhibits anticipated monthly tuition of $600 for four months, and the record was unclear whether travel costs had been included. Father’s unanswered fee request also included entries predating Mother’s relocation petition and entries concerning unrelated matters. The court vacated both awards and remanded for reconsideration, directing the superior court not to consider irrelevant billing entries.
Key Takeaways
- The $4,000 tuition-cost award lacked a record-supported calculation.
- On remand, attorney fees must exclude billing entries unrelated to the relocation petition.
- Failure to file an answering brief allowed the court to treat Mother’s debatable appellate issues as a confession of reversible error.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that family-court monetary awards must be supported by the record, even where a party’s conduct prompts sanctions or fee shifting. It also illustrates the appellate consequence of an appellee’s failure to respond when the appellant raises debatable, supported claims of error.