State v. Hutchison

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

STATE OF ARIZONA, ex rel., the DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC
SECURITY (RACHEL MORELAND), 1 Petitioner/Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY HUTCHISON, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CV 19-0524 FC
FILED 7-9-2020

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. FC2012-093111
The Honorable Gregg Clarke Gibbons, Judge Pro Tempore (Retired)

AFFIRMED

APPEARANCES

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Carol A. Salvati
Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee

Anthony Hutchison, Florence
Respondent/Appellant

1 This caption is amended as reflected. The amended caption shall be used

on all further documents filed in this appeal.
 STATE, et al. v. HUTCHISON
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge D. Steven Williams delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge Maria Elena Cruz2 joined.

W I L L I A M S, Judge:

¶1 Anthony Hutchison appeals from an administrative decision
affirming a limited income withholding order. For the following reasons,
we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Hutchison and Rachel Moreland have six children in
common. In 2013, the superior court issued a decree of dissolution and
ordered Hutchison to pay Moreland $97 per month in child support.
Sometime thereafter, Hutchison was sentenced to a term in the Arizona
Department of Corrections (“ADC”) following a felony conviction. In 2018,
due to Hutchison’s incarceration, the State petitioned to modify
Hutchison’s monthly child support obligation to zero. The superior court
granted the State’s petition and suspended any accrual of interest during
incarceration. Hutchison, however, still owed approximately $4,000 in child
support arrearages.

¶3 Between December 2018 and January 2019, the following
sums were deposited into Hutchison’s inmate account: (1) $150 from his
mother; (2) $200 from a cousin; and (3) $100 from a friend. On January 28,
2019, the Arizona Department of Economic Security (“ADES”) issued a
limited income withholding order directing ADC to withhold a lump sum
payment of $4,129.02 from Hutchison’s inmate account for child support
arrearages. Two days later, ADC withdrew $395.08 from Hutchison’s
account. Hutchison filed a request for administrative review of the limited
income withholding order under A.R.S. § 25-522. ADES reviewed and
upheld the order.

2 Judge Maria Elena Cruz replaces the Honorable Kenton D. Jones, who was

originally assigned to this panel. Judge Cruz has read the briefs and
reviewed the record.

2
 STATE, et al. v. HUTCHISON
Decision of the Court

¶4 Hutchison then appealed seeking judicial review in the
superior court claiming ADES erred in categorizing deposits to his account
as lump sum payments under § 25-505(E) and allowing the funds to be
withheld. The State filed a motion to dismiss Hutchison’s appeal for failure
to state a claim, citing to Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and
Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure 29(a)(6). Hutchison responded, and
also filed a motion requesting findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Following an evidentiary hearing, 3 the court issued an under advisement
ruling granting the State’s motion to dismiss Hutchison’s appeal and
denying Hutchison’s request for findings of fact and conclusions of law.

¶5 Hutchison timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under
Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and A.R.S. §§ 12-
120.21(A)(1), -913 and -2101(A)(1). See Svendsen v. Ariz. Dept. of Transp.,
Motor Vehicle Div., 234 Ariz. 528, 533, ¶13 (App. 2014) (finding appellate
jurisdiction under the Administrative Review Act for cases “permitted by
law to be appealed from the superior court”) (quoting A.R.S. § 12-
120.21(A)(1)).

DISCUSSION

¶6 On appeal to the superior court, A.R.S. § 12-910 affords a
party the right to a trial de novo and/or an evidentiary hearing, but only if
requested. 4 Hutchison did not request either an evidentiary hearing or a trial
de novo. Rather, Hutchison specifically informed both ADES and the
superior court, “[a] trial de novo is not requested.” Hutchison, therefore,
was entitled to have the superior court review the administrative decision
to determine whether that decision was “illegal, arbitrary, capricious or
involved an abuse of discretion.” Havasu Heights Ranch and Dev. Corp. v.
Desert Valley Wood Products, Inc., 167 Ariz. 383, 386 (App. 1990).

¶7 The Rules of Procedure for Judicial Review of Administrative
Decisions (“JRAD”) govern, and expressly instruct that “[e]xcept as
provided elsewhere in these rules, the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure do

3 The court’s under advisement ruling is titled “IV-D ORAL ARGUMENT,”

but indicates testimony was taken and refers to the proceeding as an
“Evidentiary Hearing.”

4 Subsection A provides in part: “If requested by a party . . . the court shall

hold an evidentiary hearing . . . .” (Emphasis added.) Similarly, subsection
C provides: “[T]he trial shall be de novo if trial de novo is demanded . . . .”
(Emphasis added.)

3
 STATE, et al. v. HUTCHISON
Decision of the Court

not apply to proceedings held pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-901 to -914.” JRAD
Rule 1(a) and (b). Further, on appeal, the superior court is tasked to “affirm,
reverse, modify or vacate and remand the agency action.” A.R.S. § 12-
910(E).

¶8 Here, the superior court “dismissed” Hutchison’s appeal
based upon Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and Arizona Rule of
Family Law Procedure 29(a)(6). However, because Hutchison appealed
ADES’s determination under § 12-904, neither the Rules of Civil Procedure,
nor the Rules of Family Law Procedure, are applicable. See JRAD Rule 1(b).
Nothing in A.R.S. §§ 12-901 to -914, nor JRAD, authorizes the superior court
to “dismiss” a timely administrative appeal; rather, the superior court’s
authority was to “affirm, reverse, modify or vacate and remand the agency
action.” A.R.S. § 12-910(E). It was improper, therefore, for the superior court
to “dismiss” the appeal based upon procedural rules that do not apply. The
State concedes this point. 5

¶9 Despite the superior court’s labeling of its ruling as a grant of
a motion to dismiss, a review of the record demonstrates the court reviewed
the merits of the administrative decision and effectively affirmed the same.
In its under advisement ruling, the court made specific findings of fact and
conclusions of law, 6 citing to and relying upon legal authority in addressing
the substantive issues Hutchison raises on appeal. In doing so, the court
applied the correct legal analysis upon which ADES affirmed the
underlying income withholding order. More specifically, the court made
the following pertinent findings:

5 Of note, both Hutchison and the State request that we reach the merits of

the underlying administrative decision despite the court’s error in granting
the motion to dismiss.

6 A.R.S. § 12-911(C) mandates: “On motion of a party before rendition of

judgment, the superior court shall make findings of fact and state
conclusions of law on which its judgment is based.” Hutchison made a
written request for the same. In its under advisement ruling, the court
indicated it was denying Hutchison’s request but only after the court made
several express findings of fact and reached conclusions of law. The record
thus demonstrates the court did comply with Hutchison’s request made
pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-911(C) despite the conflicting language in the
court’s ruling.

4
 STATE, et al. v. HUTCHISON
Decision of the Court

[1.] [A]rrearages [Hutchison] accrued under the [previous
child support] order were not extinguished by the
modification.

[2.] [ADES] has pursued administrative remedies as required
or permitted by law to collect the arrears due as is done
routinely in all child support cases. Pursuant to [A.R.S. § 25-
505], [ADES] issued a Limited Income Withholding Order to
obtain funds being held for [Hutchison’s] benefit by [ADC] in
order to apply said funds towards the past due child support
owed by [Hutchison]. [ADC] withheld $395.08.

[3.] [Hutchison] requested an administrative review of the
Limited Income Withholding Order on February 11, 2019.

[4.] [ADES] Administrative Review Unit determined that the
case met the criteria for Limited Income Withholding and
found in favor of the State. The final determination was dated
February 12, 2019.

[5.] [Hutchison’s] Notice of Appeal of Administrative
Decision was timely filed.

[6.] [T]he source of the funds in the [inmate] account was
lump sum gifts to [Hutchison] from [Hutchison’s] mother,
cousin and friend.

[7.] [ADES] does have the authority to issue an income
withholding order to [ADC], which thereafter was obligated
to withhold and transmit the funds to the Clearinghouse. [See
A.R.S. § 25-505(A), (D)].

[8.] [Hutchison] sets forth no basis in his Notice of Appeal of
Administrative Decision . . . that would justify his objection to
the State’s right, as a matter of law, to issue a Limited Income
Withholding Order to collect delinquent child support.

[9.] [Hutchison] is aware of, and admits, the obligation for
child support in this case and that he is delinquent.

[10.] [W]ithholding of periodic earnings has been postponed
until [Hutchison’s] release from incarceration, but that does
not prohibit the use of other collection remedies which are
cumulative and permissible by law. [See A.R.S. § 25-501(D),

5
 STATE, et al. v. HUTCHISON
Decision of the Court

(E); see also State ex rel. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. v. Torres, 245 Ariz.
554 (App. 2018)].

¶10 These findings demonstrate the superior court thoroughly
reviewed the administrative decision, made appropriate findings of fact
based upon that review, and reached valid conclusions of law in
considering Hutchison’s appeal. And although the court ultimately upheld
the administrative decision through an incorrect grant of a motion to
dismiss, we may affirm the court’s decision on any ground supported by
the record. Pettit v. Pettit, 218 Ariz. 529, 531, ¶ 4 (App. 2008). We therefore
may “reach the underlying issue of whether the administrative action was
illegal, arbitrary, capricious or involved an abuse of discretion.” Havasu
Heights, 167 Ariz. at 386.

¶11 We will affirm an administrative decision appealed to the
superior court under the Administrative Review Act if the record contains
evidence to support the superior court’s judgment. Id. Here, Hutchison
argues ADES erred in categorizing gifts of $150, $200, and $100 from his
mother, cousin, and friend, respectively, as lump sum payments under
§ 25-505(E). We addressed this issue in State ex rel. Department of Economic
Security v. Torres, 245 Ariz. 554 (App. 2018), which the superior court cites
in its order.

¶12 In Torres, ADC withheld $90.07 from the account of an inmate
owing child support arrearages, pursuant to a limited income withholding
order. Id. at 556, ¶ 3. In our analysis of § 25-505(E), we concluded that a
“gift” of $120 from the inmate’s mother, wired into the inmate’s ADC
account, qualified as a “lump sum payment” under § 25-505(E). Id. at 559,
¶ 19. We further held that because ADC became a “holder . . . of a lump
sum payment that is . . . held for the benefit of an obligor,” see A.R.S. § 25-
505(A), ADES “had authority to issue the withholding order to ADC, which
thereafter was obligated to withhold and transmit the money to the
clearinghouse,” Torres, 245 Ariz. at 559, ¶ 19; see also A.R.S. § 25-505(A), (D).
Applying the holding in Torres to the matter at hand, ADES did not err in
characterizing the deposits from Hutchison’s mother, cousin, and friend as
lump sum payments eligible for withholding from ADC consistent with the
limited income withholding order.

6
 STATE, et al. v. HUTCHISON
Decision of the Court

¶13 Thus, based upon the record before us, 7 we cannot conclude
the ADES decision “was illegal, arbitrary, capricious or involved an abuse
of discretion.” See Havasu Heights, 167 Ariz. at 386.

CONCLUSION

¶14 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
FILED: AA

7 The record does not include the transcript from the superior court
evidentiary hearing. In the absence of a transcript, we presume the record
supports the court’s ruling. Kohler v. Kohler, 211 Ariz. 106, 108, ¶ 8 n.1 (App.
2005).

7