Background
Christopher and Coren Sinacori married in 1996 and have two children, one still a minor. In 2022, Husband filed for dissolution in Maricopa County Superior Court. In August 2023, the parties participated in mediation and reached a comprehensive settlement, recorded on audio before the mediator. Under that agreement, Husband was to pay $1,000 per month in child support, $14,500 per month in non-modifiable spousal maintenance until the parties sold their jointly owned business, and Wife’s attorneys’ fees.
When Husband submitted a proposed consent decree in October 2023, Wife sought additional time to respond, citing concerns about personal guarantee provisions and scheduling conflicts. Rather than granting that request, the court rejected the proposed decree outright, finding Wife’s filing demonstrated the parties were not in complete agreement. The matter proceeded through numerous continuances to a February 2025 trial.
At the conclusion of trial, the court directed post-trial briefing on issues related to the settlement agreement. In the interim, the parties’ positions had shifted considerably — both as to whether a binding settlement existed and as to the proper treatment of spousal maintenance and the business distribution. The April 2025 decree ultimately affirmed the settlement agreement in part but modified it, ordering child support of $1,383 per month (an increase), spousal maintenance of $6,000 per month (a decrease from $14,500), and no payment of Wife’s attorneys’ fees (eliminating that obligation entirely).
The Court’s Holding
The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, vacated the dissolution decree and remanded for further proceedings. The court held that the superior court had no proper basis to issue a decree that partially adopted the parties’ settlement agreement while modifying its material terms. Critically, the record contained no findings approving the settlement agreement as required by Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure 69(b) and A.R.S. § 25-317(B). The sole prior ruling on the agreement — the court’s October 2023 rejection — ran directly contrary to any implied approval.
The court relied on Jacobs v. Jacobs, 259 Ariz. 467, ¶ 12, 567 P.3d 1287, 1290 (App. 2025), which holds that a superior court may not adopt only parts of a separation agreement and reject others. The court also rejected Husband’s invited-error argument, finding that Wife’s pre-trial statements acknowledging unresolved issues did not cause the superior court to enter the decree it did.
On remand, the court instructed that if the parties submit a settlement agreement for approval, the superior court must make an evidence-based determination of whether the agreement is unfair before approving or rejecting it in its entirety. If no agreement is submitted or the court rejects one, the case must be retried. The appeals court declined to reach Wife’s due process or evidentiary arguments given the remand.
Key Takeaways
- An Arizona superior court cannot selectively adopt portions of a marital settlement agreement while modifying or rejecting other material terms — the court must approve or reject the agreement in full.
- A settlement agreement reached at mediation under ARFLP 69(a)(3) is not binding on the court until submitted to and approved by the court as provided by law; a prior rejection of a proposed consent decree forecloses treating the agreement as implicitly approved.
- On remand, before approving any settlement agreement, the superior court must make an affirmative, evidence-based finding that the agreement is not unfair, with the relevant inquiry focused on circumstances existing at the time of the agreement’s formation.
- An invited-error argument will fail where the complaining party’s pre-trial statements acknowledging disputes did not affirmatively lead the court into the specific error challenged on appeal.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces a strict all-or-nothing rule for judicial adoption of marital settlement agreements in Arizona, directly applying Jacobs v. Jacobs (2025). Family law practitioners should be aware that a trial court has no authority to cherry-pick favorable provisions from a negotiated settlement — a practice that can leave both parties bound to terms neither agreed to. The decision also underscores the procedural importance of securing formal court approval of any mediated agreement before either party relies on its terms.
The case is also a cautionary tale about the dangers of shifting litigation positions. Both parties’ evolving stances on whether a binding settlement existed complicated the legal analysis and contributed to over two years of proceedings without a final, enforceable decree. Attorneys negotiating divorce settlements should document the agreement’s approval promptly and resist the temptation to revisit agreed terms through subsequent pleadings.