227 Ariz. 403, 258 P.3d 221, 610 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 18
(Cite as: 227 Ariz. 403)
© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
258 P.3d 221 / Page XXX227 Ariz. 403, 258 P.3d 221, 610 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 18
(Cite as: 227 Ariz. 403)
Court of Appeals of Arizona,
Division 2, Department B.
In re the MARRIAGE OF Hyatt M. GIBBS, Petitioner/Appellee/Cross–Appellant,
and
Lethia A. Gibbs, Respondent/Appellant/Cross–Appellee.
Hyatt M. Gibbs, Appellee/Cross–Appellant,
v.
Lethia A. Gibbs; Vanetta Gibbs, by and through her guardian ad litem, Leigh H. Bernstein, Appellants/Cross–Appellees.
Nos. 2 CA–CV 2010–0120, 2 CA–CV 2010–0172.
June 9, 2011.
Background: Mother filed petition against father, seeking to reinstate child support for the parties' disabled adult daughter. The Superior Court, Pima County, No. D68311,Howard Hantman, J., denied petition. Mother appealed, and father cross-appealed.
Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Kelly, J., held that:
(1) res judicata did not operate to preclude mother's claim;
(2) res judicata did not operate to preclude mother's claim;
(3) doctrines of waiver, laches, and equitable estoppel did not operate to preclude claims seeking to reinstate child support;
(4) substantial evidence supported trial court's finding that disabled adult child was severely mentally disabled and that her disability had existed before age of majority;
(5) trial court acted within its discretion in awarding mother attorney fees based on the disparity in the parties' incomes; and
(6) mother was not entitled to award of attorney fees incurred on appeal.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
West Headnotes
[1] Judgment 228 540
228 Judgment
228XIII Merger and Bar of Causes of Action and Defenses
228XIII(A) Judgments Operative as Bar
228k540 k. Nature and requisites of former recovery as bar in general. Most Cited Cases
The doctrine of res judicata will preclude a claim when a former judgment on the merits was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction and the matter now in issue between the same parties or their privities was, or might have been, determined in the former action.
[2] Appeal and Error 30 842(2)
30 Appeal and Error
30XVI Review
30XVI(A) Scope, Standards, and Extent, in General
30k838 Questions Considered
30k842 Review Dependent on Whether Questions Are of Law or of Fact
30k842(2) k. Findings of fact and conclusions of law. Most Cited Cases
Appeal and Error 30 1008.1(5)
30 Appeal and Error
30XVI Review
30XVI(I) Questions of Fact, Verdicts, and Findings
30XVI(I)3 Findings of Court
30k1008 Conclusiveness in General
30k1008.1 In General
30k1008.1(5) k. Clearly erroneous findings. Most Cited Cases
Appellate court reviews a trial court's findings of fact for abuse of discretion and reverses only when clearly erroneous; however, appellate court draws its own legal conclusions from the facts found or implied in the judgment.
[3] Judgment 228 540
228 Judgment
228XIII Merger and Bar of Causes of Action and Defenses
228XIII(A) Judgments Operative as Bar
228k540 k. Nature and requisites of former recovery as bar in general. Most Cited Cases
Even when the technical requirements for claim preclusion based on a former adjudication are met, the court should not apply preclusion principles where there is some overriding consideration of fairness to a litigant, as determined by the particular case's circumstances.
[4] Child Support 76E 225
76E Child Support
76EV Proceedings
76EV(D) Judgment
76Ek225 k. Res judicata. Most Cited Cases
Res judicata, or claim preclusion, did not operate to preclude mother from seeking to reinstate child support for parties' disabled adult daughter, even though trial court, several years earlier, had entered stipulated order terminating father's obligation to pay child support upon dissolution decree that did not require father's support after child reached age of 22; stipulated order did not address issues of whether child suffered from disabilities, whether such disabilities were severe, or whether she had ability to support herself, and application of res judicata would have undermined public policy by preventing consideration of changed circumstances.
[5] Judgment 228 540
228 Judgment
228XIII Merger and Bar of Causes of Action and Defenses
228XIII(A) Judgments Operative as Bar
228k540 k. Nature and requisites of former recovery as bar in general. Most Cited Cases
Claim preclusion is a judicially created doctrine; that doctrine, however, is not rigidly applied when it would contravene an overriding public policy or result in manifest injustice.
[6] Child Support 76E 290
76E Child Support
76EVI Modification
76EVI(B) Particular Factors and Grounds
76EVI(B)4 Factors Relating to Child
76Ek290 k. In general. Most Cited Cases
When evaluating whether child support modification is appropriate, the primary, paramount, and controlling consideration is the welfare of the child.
[7] Statutes 361 188
361 Statutes
361VI Construction and Operation
361VI(A) General Rules of Construction
361k187 Meaning of Language
361k188 k. In general. Most Cited Cases
To interpret a statute, courts first look to the language therein and give the words used their plain meaning, unless context demands otherwise.
[8] Statutes 361 181(1)
361 Statutes
361VI Construction and Operation
361VI(A) General Rules of Construction
361k180 Intention of Legislature
361k181 In General
361k181(1) k. In general. Most Cited Cases
Courts interpret statutes with the goal of fulfilling the intent of the legislature.
[9] Child Support 76E 225
76E Child Support
76EV Proceedings
76EV(D) Judgment
76Ek225 k. Res judicata. Most Cited Cases
Trial court's application of res judicata or claim preclusion as to adult child's claim seeking to reinstate child support on her own behalf was based on clearly erroneous finding that parties to current proceeding were the same as those who had signed stipulation on which trial court entered previous order terminating father's child support obligation, and that child was not a party in either proceeding, when in fact child was joined as a party in instant action at father's own request; therefore, because she was a party to action in her own right, adult child's claim was not subject to dismissal on res judicata grounds.
[10] Child Support 76E 294
76E Child Support
76EVI Modification
76EVI(B) Particular Factors and Grounds
76EVI(B)4 Factors Relating to Child
76Ek294 k. Health. Most Cited Cases
Doctrines of waiver, laches, and equitable estoppel did not operate to preclude mother and disabled adult child from seeking to reinstate child support for child; child's Social Security benefits were not sufficient to support conclusion that child's interests were not adversely affected by father's refusal to support child, and father offered no evidence, expert or otherwise, to support his claims of prejudice and injury.
[11] Equity 150 71(1)
150 Equity
150II Laches and Stale Demands
150k68 Grounds and Essentials of Bar
150k71 Lapse of Time
150k71(1) k. In general. Most Cited Cases
Estoppel 156 52(1)
156 Estoppel
156III Equitable Estoppel
156III(A) Nature and Essentials in General
156k52 Nature and Application of Estoppel in Pais
156k52(1) k. In general. Most Cited Cases
Estoppel 156 52(3)
156 Estoppel
156III Equitable Estoppel
156III(A) Nature and Essentials in General
156k52 Nature and Application of Estoppel in Pais
156k52(3) k. Estoppel by conduct. Most Cited Cases
Delay alone cannot establish a defense of laches, and failure to act does not make out a claim for estoppel.
[12] Child Support 76E 294
76E Child Support
76EVI Modification
76EVI(B) Particular Factors and Grounds
76EVI(B)4 Factors Relating to Child
76Ek294 k. Health. Most Cited Cases
Substantial evidence supported trial court's finding that disabled adult child was severely mentally disabled and that her disability had existed before age of majority, such that father's child support obligation continued into child's adulthood; two experts testified that child had multiple physical and mental impairments, which included learning disabilities, auditory processing problems, emotional difficulties, depression, and possibly bipolar disorder and/or a personality disorder, and one expert diagnosed child with Asperger's Syndrome and testified that “she would have at a young age qualified for [this] diagnosis.” A.R.S. § 25–320.
[13] Appeal and Error 30 1008.1(5)
30 Appeal and Error
30XVI Review
30XVI(I) Questions of Fact, Verdicts, and Findings
30XVI(I)3 Findings of Court
30k1008 Conclusiveness in General
30k1008.1 In General
30k1008.1(5) k. Clearly erroneous findings. Most Cited Cases
The appellate court defers to a trial court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous; the presence of contrary facts does not render a trial court's factual determinations clearly erroneous.
[14] Child Support 76E 603
76E Child Support
76EXIII Costs
76Ek603 k. Attorney fees. Most Cited Cases
Trial court acted within its discretion in awarding mother attorney fees based on the disparity in the parties' incomes, in action in which mother sought to reinstate child support for the parties' disabled adult daughter; trial court received evidence regarding “financial resources of both parties,” including financial affidavits and testimony.
[15] Child Support 76E 556(1)
76E Child Support
76EXII Appeal or Judicial Review
76Ek548 Review
76Ek556 Discretion
76Ek556(1) k. In general. Most Cited Cases
A trial court's award of attorney fees in an action relating to child support is reviewed for an abuse of discretion; the appellate court will not reverse such an award if there is any reasonable basis for it.
[16] Child Support 76E 603
76E Child Support
76EXIII Costs
76Ek603 k. Attorney fees. Most Cited Cases
An award of attorney fees in action concerning child support can be appropriate simply because an income disparity exists, and it is not necessary to also inquire into whether the fee applicant is actually able to pay his or her own fees.
[17] Child Support 76E 603
76E Child Support
76EXIII Costs
76Ek603 k. Attorney fees. Most Cited Cases
Mother was not entitled to award of attorney fees that were incurred in appealing order denying her petition seeking to reinstate father's child support obligation for the parties' disabled adult daughter; although there was a disparity between parties' financial resources, father was responsible for half of mother's, and all of his own, attorney fees incurred at the trial level, as well as his own fees on appeal, and mother did not advance an unreasonable position on appeal. A.R.S. § 25–324; 17B A.R.S. Civil Appellate Proc.Rules, Rule 21.
*223 Law Office of Sandra Tedlock By Sandra Tedlock, Tucson, Attorneys for Petitioner/Appellee/Cross–Appellant.
DeConcini McDonald Yetwin & Lacy, P.C. By AlyceL. Pennington and Sesaly O. Stamps, Tucson, Attorneys for Respondent/Appellant/Cross–Appellee Lethia Gibbs.
Fleming & Curti, P.L.C. By LeighH. Bernstein, Tucson, Attorneys for Appellant/Cross–Appellee Vanetta Gibbs.
OPINION
KELLY, Judge.
¶ 1 Appellant Lethia Gibbs appeals the trial court's denial of her petition to reinstate child support for her disabled adult daughter, Vanetta Gibbs.FN1 Appellee Hyatt Gibbs, Vanetta's father, cross-appeals alleging the court erred in rejecting his arguments that the claim was barred by waiver, laches, and estoppel; in finding that Vanetta “is severely mentally disabled under Arizona law”; in failing to order Lethia to pay half of Vanetta's guardian ad litem fees; and in requiring that he pay half of Lethia's attorney fees. Because we conclude the court erred in ruling Lethia's claim was precluded as res judicata, and in determining Vanetta was not a party, we reverse in part and remand for further proceedings.
FN1. Through her guardian ad litem, Vanetta filed a separate notice of appeal. We thereafter consolidated the appeals, and Vanetta joined in Lethia's briefs.
Background
¶ 2 We review the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial court's rulings. *224Bennett v. Baxter Group, Inc., 223 Ariz. 414, ¶ 2, 224 P.3d 230, 233 (App.2010). Hyatt and Lethia Gibbs were married in 1960. When their marriage was dissolved in 1988, they had one minor child, Vanetta, who was seventeen years old. Because Vanetta had been diagnosed with “learning disabilities” and was behind in school, the dissolution decree provided that Hyatt would continue to pay child support until Vanetta “reach[ed] the age of twenty-two ... marrie[d], die[d], or bec[ame] totally self-supporting, whichever occur[red] first.”
¶ 3 Shortly before Vanetta turned twenty-two, Lethia asked Hyatt to sign an agreement to pay child support for Vanetta after her twenty-second birthday. Hyatt refused, but wrote in a letter to Lethia: “Of course, she needs my continued support, both financial and moral, and she will receive both. But why make this a court action which I will deeply resent and which could easily make her believe she cannot and need not work?” In 1993, after Vanetta turned twenty-two, Hyatt filed a request to modify the 1988 order of assignment to stop child support payments. Hyatt and Lethia reached an agreement (“1993 stipulation”) that “[Hyatt's] obligation to pay child support ended” when Vanetta reached twenty-two years of age. After the court entered an order terminating Hyatt's child support obligation pursuant to the 1993 stipulation (“stipulated order”), Hyatt continued to make payments directly to Vanetta for several months but then stopped.
¶ 4 In 2005, Lethia filed a motion to reinstate child support for Vanetta and the trial court appointed a guardian ad litem to represent her. By stipulation of the parties, Vanetta underwent independent medical and psychological examinations. Due to continuances and settlement attempts, the motion for child support remained unresolved in January 2010, when Hyatt filed a motion to join Vanetta as an indispensable party. The court granted Hyatt's motion and in April 2010, following a bench trial, it held that “Vanetta [was] severely mentally or physically disabled” and pursuant to A.R.S. § 25–320 “met the statutory requirements for child support.” The court, however, denied Lethia's motion to reinstate child support, determining the stipulated order precluded her claim as res judicata. The court further found “Vanetta is not a party in either proceeding” and did not address her claim for child support. Thereafter, Lethia filed a notice of appeal on behalf of Vanetta and herself and Hyatt filed a cross-appeal.FN2
FN2. The appeal and cross-appeal were stayed until the trial court entered an order regarding attorney fees.