Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Kabat v. Nordensson
Citations: 152 Ariz. 438; 733 P.2d 635; 1986 Ariz. App. LEXIS 712Docket: No. 2 CA-CIV 5757
Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona; October 9, 1986; Arizona; State Appellate Court
Nancy Kabat appeals a trial court order that set aside judgments against her former husband, Jeffrey Nordensson, for failing to pay spousal maintenance and attorney’s fees. The marriage was dissolved on February 28, 1984, and a new trial was granted to Kabat on May 8, 1984, though a formal order was not filed until June 6. Nordensson filed an appeal on June 20, and Kabat subsequently sought clarification of the judgment. On September 13, 1984, the trial court granted a new trial on all issues except the marriage status and reinstated spousal maintenance at $800, despite a previous decree setting it at $400. Nordensson appealed this ruling, which was later reversed by the court. While the appeal was pending, Kabat secured judgments against Nordensson for maintenance arrears and attorney’s fees, which he did not contest in his initial appeal. However, following the reversal, the trial court set aside these judgments, reasoning that they stemmed from the earlier order for a new trial that had been overturned and that it lacked jurisdiction to issue maintenance orders while an appeal was active. Kabat contends the trial court maintained jurisdiction over spousal maintenance and attorney’s fees pending appeal and that Nordensson’s motion to vacate was untimely. The court found that it indeed retained jurisdiction to rule on these matters, reversing the trial court's decision. Arizona law supports a trial court’s authority to address spousal maintenance and custody issues pending appeal, and since the trial court had set aside the entire decree, it was within its discretion to reinstate the prior maintenance amount of $800. A.R.S. 25-317(F) establishes that a trial court retains jurisdiction over certain matters, even after an appeal is initiated, specifically regarding spousal maintenance and child support, custody, or visitation. A.R.S. 25-325 further clarifies that orders for support payments are not stayed during an appeal. The case at hand involved an appeal by Nordensson based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, which did not address spousal maintenance. The court concluded that the trial court incorrectly set aside the spousal maintenance order from September 13, 1984, and any related judgments due to a lack of jurisdiction. Kabat was granted attorney’s fees on appeal, contingent upon filing the necessary affidavits. Though not essential for the ruling, it was noted that Nordensson's motion to set aside judgments was timely under Rule 60(c) after the prior decision. The trial court's reasoning for setting aside the judgments was based on a perceived lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which can be raised at any time by the parties or the court itself.