Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE
v.
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Patricia A. Orozco delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge
Peter B. Swann and Chief Judge Michael J. Brown joined.
O R O Z C O, Judge:
2 Mother and Father married in May 2006, and had one child
together. Before their marriage, Mother and Father entered into a
Prenuptial Agreement (Agreement) prepared by Fathers attorney. Section
4 of the Agreement stated that both parties shall, and do hereby waive,
release and relinquish any and all rights to maintenance, alimony or
support for themselves. The exception to this provision in Section 4a,
stated that [Mother] would receive a cash payment from [Father] of
$175,000 dollars US, if the marriage were to end in seven years and the
parties had a child. Mother would also be awarded the parties primary
residence. The Agreement stated that Tennessee law would govern its
interpretation.
2
SACHS v. SACHS
Decision of the Court
Father filed a notice of appeal on October 24, 2014. After the decree was
entered, the superior court awarded Mother $12,000 in attorney fees. The
appeal was deemed abandoned on January 8, 2015, because there was an
undecided tax credit issue. The superior court entered an amended decree
addressing all issues in August 2015 based on the July 2014 minute entry.2
DISCUSSION
2 The July 2014 minute entry is dated July 15, 2014, was filed on July
18, 2014, and is referred to in the Amended Decree as the July 25, 2014
minute entry.
3
SACHS v. SACHS
Decision of the Court
superior court, Father requested that the court not make a decision until
evidence could be presented. In spite of Fathers request, the court held
oral argument and determined an evidentiary hearing was not necessary.
ARCAP 11(c) does not require dismissal if transcripts are not provided. We
therefore deny Mothers request to dismiss Fathers appeal for failure to
provide transcripts.
[a]t the end of Ten (10) years, if the marriage were to end, [Mother],
would receive a cash payment from [Father] $175,000 dollars US. . . .
If [Mother] and [Father] have a child(ren) the years shorten by three
(3) years of each five (5) year increment, so end of five years becomes
end of two years, etc. end of ten (10) years becomes end seven (7)
years and so on.
4
SACHS v. SACHS
Decision of the Court
5
SACHS v. SACHS
Decision of the Court
6
SACHS v. SACHS
Decision of the Court
23 Father argues if the case is remanded for a new trial, the fee
award should also be vacated. Because we affirm the denial of the motion
for new trial, we also deny Fathers request to vacate the attorney fees
award.
CONCLUSION