Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona; April 7, 1994; Arizona; State Appellate Court
The trial court possessed jurisdiction to extend spousal maintenance after the husband's final payment, as the wife filed her petition for modification on the last day of the designated thirty-six-month maintenance period. The marriage between Judith Ann Evitt (Wife) and Charles H. Evitt (Husband) was dissolved on September 11, 1987, with the husband ordered to pay $2,200 monthly for thirty-six months. The final payment occurred on August 15, 1990, and the wife filed her petition for modification on September 14, 1990. The husband contended that jurisdiction ended with his last payment, referencing A.R.S. sections 25-327(A) and 25-319(C). However, the trial court, citing A.R.S. § 25-319(O), ruled it had jurisdiction since the petition was filed within the specified period. The court awarded the wife an additional two years of maintenance and attorney’s fees. The husband did not contest the maintenance amount or the fees on appeal, focusing solely on the jurisdiction issue. The court clarified that the prior case, Schroeder v. Schroeder, did not support the husband’s interpretation, emphasizing that modification could occur within the maintenance period even if payments had concluded, provided there was a substantial change in circumstances.
The court clarified that the emphasized phrase in the Schroeder case does not determine when a request for modification must be filed, nor does A.R.S. section 25-327(A) define such a time period. This statute allows for maintenance modification but prohibits retroactive application. The Schroeder court found no need to interpret A.R.S. section 25-319(C) since the matter did not involve the filing timeline for modification petitions. A.R.S. section 25-319(C) establishes the trial court's jurisdiction to modify spousal maintenance awards during the maintenance period. In this case, maintenance was awarded for thirty-six months, concluding on September 14, 1990, the day Wife filed her modification petition. The trial court correctly recognized that the maintenance duration was thirty-six months, providing jurisdiction for the petition since it was filed on the final day of that period. Husband's cited cases did not demonstrate a lack of jurisdiction, as they did not rely on a statute analogous to A.R.S. section 25-319(C). Wife requested costs and attorney’s fees under A.R.S. section 25-324; however, the court declined to grant these due to insufficient information on the parties' financial resources. The Wrench case was referenced to illustrate the distinction between maintenance awarded for a set period versus a specific termination date, emphasizing that a modification must be filed before the support obligation ends, which was not applicable in this case.
