ades/hoelscher v. Rux
The holding in the court’s own words
17, 2009) ("Under these circumstances, we conclude that we must remand this case Absent material revision after the relevant date, we cite a statute's current version.
Quoted verbatim from the opinion — no paraphrase, nothing generated. Not yet human-reviewed. How we work.
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Albins v. Elovitz 791 P.2d 366
Opinion text
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.
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
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF ARIZONA ex rel. ARIZONA
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY
(JAMI LYNNE HOELSCHER), Petitioners/Appellees,
v.
MICHAEL DAVID RUX, JR., Respondent/Appellant.
No. 1 CA-CV 13-0754
FILED 06-26-2014
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. FC2003-093081
The Honorable Jamie B. Holguin, Judge Pro Tempore
REVERSED AND REMANDED
COUNSEL
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By Carol A. Salvati
Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee ADES
Keith R. Lalliss, Attorney at Law, Mesa
By Keith R. Lalliss
Counsel for Respondent/Appellant
ADES/HOELSCHER v. RUX
Decision of the Court
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Chief Judge Diane M. Johnsen delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.
J O H N S E N, Judge:
¶1 Michael David Rux appeals from the superior court's order
requiring him to pay child support beginning August 1, 2013. Rux argued
the child's mother had waived any child support in exchange for his
agreement to have no role in the child's life. The superior court ruled any
such waiver was not effective after August 1, 2013. The court's order
explained:
THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that it is in the best interest
of the child for the Court NOT to recognize the waiver in the
future; because Father now seeks to have contact with the
minor child.
¶2 On appeal, the State acknowledges insufficient evidence
supports the court's finding that Rux now seeks to have contact with the
child. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to Article 6, Section
9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes sections 12-
120.21(A)(1) (2014) and -2101(A)(1), (2) (2014). 1
¶3 We agree that insufficient evidence supports the superior
court's finding that Rux intends to pursue a relationship with the child.
We therefore reverse that finding and remand for further proceedings
consistent with the previous memorandum decision in this case. Ariz.
Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Rux, 2009 WL 3836120, *3, ¶ 17 (Nov. 17, 2009)
("Under these circumstances, we conclude that we must remand this case
1 Absent material revision after the relevant date, we cite a statute's
current version.
2
ADES/HOELSCHER v. RUX
Decision of the Court
to the trial court to determine if there was a waiver, whether any such
waiver is still valid, and whether it is in the best interests of the child for
the court to recognize such waiver."). See Albins v. Elovitz, 164 Ariz. 99,
102, 791 P.2d 366, 369 (App. 1990) (court may enforce child support waiver
only if the interests of the child are not adversely affected).
:gsh
3