Background
Lawrence Riddle, Jr. filed for dissolution of his non-covenant marriage to Jennifer Sosnowski in 2023. During an April 2025 mediation, both parties were represented by counsel and signed a comprehensive agreement under Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure 69 addressing legal decision-making, parenting time, child support, and division of assets.
The agreement stated that the parties entered it knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently; had not been subjected to duress, coercion, or undue influence; and considered its terms fair and equitable. After the superior court adopted the agreement without objection, Sosnowski moved to alter or set aside it, alleging duress, impracticability, and unfairness. The court denied her motion and entered the dissolution decree based on the agreement.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that Sosnowski did not carry her burden to overcome the presumption that the signed Rule 69 agreement was valid. Even accepting her allegations about the lengthy mediation, fatigue, migraines, medication, and pressure to settle, those circumstances did not show a wrongful threat or act that deprived her of free will and judgment. The court also concluded that encouragement from her attorney and the other alleged circumstances did not establish undue influence.
The court rejected Sosnowski’s impracticability argument because the agreement did not make her father’s anticipated $100,000 contribution a basic assumption shared by both parties, and it expressly provided that the residence would be sold if she missed the equalization-payment deadline. Her unilateral-mistake defense was waived because she had not raised it below, and the signed writing was binding without later ratification.
The superior court also did not violate due process by deciding the motion without an evidentiary hearing. The agreement, its attachments, the parties’ affidavits, and their extensive briefing supplied enough information for an independent fairness review. The appellate court presumed the superior court applied the governing law despite making no explicit fairness findings. It denied Sosnowski’s fee requests and awarded Riddle reasonable appellate fees and costs subject to compliance with the applicable rule.
Key Takeaways
- A written and signed Arizona Rule 69 family-law agreement is presumed valid, and the party challenging it bears the burden of proving a defect.
- Fatigue, illness, medication, a long mediation, and pressure to settle do not establish duress without facts showing a wrongful act or threat that overcame the party’s free will.
- An evidentiary hearing is unnecessary when the existing record gives the superior court sufficient information to assess the agreement’s fairness independently.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the difficulty of undoing a counseled Rule 69 settlement based on circumstances known when it was signed, particularly when the agreement contains express acknowledgments of voluntariness and fairness. Parties must also preserve distinct contract defenses in the superior court and ensure that any condition essential to performance is stated in the written agreement.
The memorandum decision is not precedential under Arizona Supreme Court Rule 111(c) and may be cited only as that rule permits.