Professional Documents
Culture Documents
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE
LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.
IN THE
DECISION ORDER
Judge Maurice Portley delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop and Judge Andrew W. Gould
joined.
P O R T L E Y, Judge:
1
Jennifer Nunez (Mother) challenges the ruling that she
and Richard Gordon (Father) did not reach an enforceable settlement
agreement pursuant to Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure (Family
Rule) 69 on his petition to modify legal decision-making, parenting time,
and child support. For the following reasons, we accept jurisdiction and
grant relief by remanding the issue for an evidentiary hearing so that the
superior court can decide the issue.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
2
Father filed a petition for ex parte emergency orders and to
modify legal decision-making, parenting time, and child support. The
parties held an informal settlement conference on January 14, 2014, and
purportedly reached a general consensus to resolve the petition. After a
series of offers and counter-offers, Father agreed to pay $9500 in attorneys
fees to Mother as part of the global settlement of the issues. The parties,
however, could not agree on settlement language and, by the end of the
month, Father wanted to negotiate additional terms. The parties
eventually resolved those issues and Father, by his lawyer, sent an email
with the revised language to the settlement agreement to Mothers lawyer
in mid-February. The email also noted that Father would sign and
notarize the settlement.
3
Mother signed the settlement agreement, had her signature
notarized, and emailed the signature page to Fathers attorney. Instead of
adding his notarized signature to the agreement, Father proposed
additional changes. Mothers attorney then sent a modified agreement to
his counterpart on March 7, 2014, and two days later sent Mothers
notarized signature page. The next day, Fathers attorney told his
counterpart that Father was ready for trial. Mother then filed a motion to
enforce the settlement agreement and vacate the trial. The court denied
12
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting relief by remanding
for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the parties had entered
into a settlement agreement pursuant to Canyon Contracting Co. v. Tohono
OOdham Housing Authority, supra 8.
:MJT