TIP: Click on subject to list as thread! ANSI
echo: vfalsac
to: ALL
from: BOB HIRSCHFELD
date: 1995-10-21 00:32:00
subject: (3) Taliaferro

(CONTINUED)
      Finally, husband does request this court to affirm the grant of the
dissolution of marriage pursuant to A.R.S. section 25-325(A), which
provides, in part:
      "A decree of dissolution of marriage.... is final when entered,
      subject to the right of appeal. An appeal from the decree of
      dissolution that does not challenge the finding that the marriage is
      irretrievably broken does not delay the finality of that provision of
      the decree which dissolves the marriage beyond the time for appealing
      from that provision, and either of the parties may remarry pending
      appeal."
 
      Although we are not unmindful of the possible ramifications of our
decision, we simply are unable under current law to affirm the decree in
this case. We believe that section 25-325(A) allows a decree to stand,
presuming no issues are raised on appeal with regard to the breakdown of
the marriage, only when that decree was entered by a court having
jurisdiction to do so in the first instance. In this case, if the trial
court lacked jurisdiction to proceed once the notice of change of judge was
filed, it lacked jurisdiction to enter ANY orders, including the decree
itself. We cannot affirm one aspect of the decree simply because the
parties request to do so. (NOTE 5) See SCHWICHTENBERG V. BRIMER, 171 Ariz.
77, 82, 828 P.2d 1218, 1223 (App. 1991); DASSINGER V. ODEN, 124 Ariz. 551,
553, 606 P.2d 41, 43 (App. 1979) (party cannot waive requirement that court
must have subject matter jurisdiction.)
                            CONCLUSION
      We conclude that husband did not waive his right to a change of judge
under Rule 42(f). Therefore, we remand to the trial court with directions
to honor husband's notice of change of judge. Because Judge Rogers had no
jurisdiction to proceed after husband's notice was filed, we vacate all
rulings and orders made by him after February 24, 1993, including the
decree of dissolution of marriage between husband and wife, and the $20,000
order of sanctions against attorney Hirschfeld. (NOTE 6)
      (Signed)    Joe W. Contreras, Judge
      CONCURRING: E.G. Noyes, Presiding Judge
                  Rudolph J. Gerber, Judge
 
      NOTE 1: See generally, Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. (A.R.S.) section 13-3602
(orders of protection
      NOTE 2: A.R.S. section 13-3602(H) provides: "At any time during the
period during which the order is in effect, a party under an order of
protection... is entitled to one hearing on written request.....After the
hearing, the court may modify, revoke or continue the order."
      NOTE 3: There is no issue in this case regarding the timeliness of
husband's notice.
      NOTE 4: In this regard, wife argues that the doctrine of laches
applies in this case. Laches does restrict the time within which a party
can file a special action. STATE EX REL. NEELY V. RODRIGUEZ, 165 Ariz. 74,
77, 796 P.2d 876, 879 (1990). However, laches cannot confer subject matter
jurisdiction in a case where there is none.
      NOTE 5: It is possible, for example, that either or both husband and
wife have since remarried, or that one or both have had subsequent
children. We note that a decree of dissolution NUNC PRO TUNC may provide an
avenue of relief, should the parties choose to pursue this upon remand. See
Rule 58(a), Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure; DEFOREST V. DEFOREST, 143
Ariz. 627, 694 P.2d 1241 (App. 1985); ESTATE OF HASH V. HENDERSON, 109
Ariz. 174, 507 P.2d 99 (1973).
      NOTE 6: Husband requests sanctions on appeal against wife for her
violation of the trial court's order sealing certain medical records of
husband. Initially, we agree that wife violated the court's order. However,
we note that these records are discussed in great detail at several points
in the record, including the August 5, 1993 hearing on wife's motion for
sanctions. Consequently, we find any violation of the court's order by wife
to be harmless, and we decline to issue any sanctions against her on this
basis.
____________________________________________________________
(END OF APPELLATE OPINION)
--- DB 1.58/004910
---------------
* Origin: Bob Hirschfeld, Moderator, FidoNet VFALSAC Echo (1:114/74.2)

SOURCE: echomail via exec-pc

Email questions or comments to sysop@ipingthereforeiam.com
All parts of this website painstakingly hand-crafted in the U.S.A.!
IPTIA BBS/MUD/Terminal/Game Server List, © 2025 IPTIA Consulting™.