Matthews v. Robles

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

In re the Matter of:

DUSTIN MATTHEWS, Petitioner/Appellee,

v.

ROSEANN ROBLES, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CV 19-0590 FC

FILED 07-23-2020

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. FC2012-093973
The Honorable Margaret Benny, Judge Pro Tempore, Retired

DISMISSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART

COUNSEL

Dustin Matthews, Tempe
Petitioner/Appellee

Roseann Robles, Avondale
Respondent/Appellant
 MATTHEWS v. ROBLES
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie and Judge Jennifer B. Campbell joined.

C A T T A N I, Judge:

¶1 Roseann Robles (“Mother”) appeals from the superior court’s
final judgment entered on July 23, 2019, denying her motion for relief from
judgment and her motion to amend and alter judgment. For reasons that
follow, we affirm in part and dismiss in part.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1

¶2 Mother and Dustin Matthews (“Father”) are the biological
parents of D.M., born in December 2011. The following year, Father filed a
petition to establish child custody and parenting time. The superior court
imposed joint legal decision-making, implemented a parenting time
schedule, and ordered Mother to pay Father $39.46 in monthly child
support.

¶3 Approximately three years later, Father filed a petition to
modify the child support order, and in February 2017, the court increased
Mother’s monthly child support obligation to $47.05, after attributing an
additional $1,037.00 in familial gifts to Father’s income. Father moved to
alter or amend the court’s February 2017 order, arguing that the court
improperly added the $1,037.00 to his monthly income because he no longer
received gifts from his family. The superior court denied his motion.

¶4 The day before the superior court denied Father’s motion to
amend or alter the February 2017 order, Father filed a second petition to
modify child support, again arguing that he did not receive recurring gifts.

1 For a more detailed discussion on the background of this case, see
Matthews v. Robles, 1 CA-CV 18-0704-FC, 2019 WL 5701782 (Ariz. App. Nov.
5, 2019) (mem. decision); Matthews v. Robles, 1 CA-CV 17-0494-FC, 2018 WL
4374214 (Ariz. App. Sept. 13, 2018) (mem. decision); Matthews v. Robles, 1
CA-CV 17-0241-FC, 2018 WL 897683 (Ariz. App. Feb. 15, 2018) (mem.
decision); Matthews v. Robles, 1 CA-CV 16-0774-FC, 2017 WL 4819368 (Ariz.
App. Oct. 26, 2017) (mem. decision).

2
 MATTHEWS v. ROBLES
Decision of the Court

In May 2017, the court denied Father’s second petition to modify child
support and awarded Mother attorney’s fees after finding that Father had
“failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances.” Father
appealed that decision, and we reversed and remanded for an evidentiary
hearing because Father presented a colorable claim for modification of child
support. See Matthews, 1 CA-CV 17-0494, at *2, ¶¶ 6–7, 10.

¶5 The superior court conducted an evidentiary hearing in
March 2019 and issued a minute entry ruling (the “March 2019 order”)
requiring Mother to pay Father $420.00 in child support, $81.00 in child
support arrears, and a $5.00 Clearinghouse payment per month, for a total
monthly obligation of $506.00.

¶6 Mother filed a motion for relief from the child support order
under Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure (“Rule”) 85 and a motion to
amend and alter judgment under Rule 83. The superior court denied those
post-judgment motions, and Mother appealed.

DISCUSSION

I. Jurisdiction.

¶7 As a preliminary matter, we note that Mother’s notice of
appeal is from the superior court’s signed minute entry denying her post-
judgment motions. She did not appeal the March 2019 order.

¶8 Generally, only final judgments are appealable. Davis v.
Cessna Aircraft Corp., 168 Ariz. 301, 304 (App. 1991). We have jurisdiction,
however, to review special orders made after a judgment under A.R.S. § 12-
2101(A)(2). To be appealable, “a post-judgment order must 1) raise
different issues than would be raised in an appeal from the underlying
decree, and 2) . . . affect the judgment or relate to its enforcement.” Williams
v. Williams, 228 Ariz. 160, 164, ¶ 11 (App. 2011). “This requirement prevents
a delayed appeal from the judgment . . . [and] multiple appeals raising the
same issues.” Arvizu v. Fernandez, 183 Ariz. 224, 227 (App. 1995).

¶9 Here, Mother’s motion for relief from judgment did not raise
any issue that could not have been raised in an appeal from the March 2019
order. In her motion for relief from judgment, Mother argued that child
support calculations were not based on present conditions and that the
court improperly used Mother and Father’s 2017 incomes without applying
yearly adjustments, ruled on issues barred by claim preclusion, disregarded
Father’s discovery non-compliance, showed bias in favor of Father, and
excluded relevant evidence. These challenges could have been brought in

3
 MATTHEWS v. ROBLES
Decision of the Court

an appeal from the underlying March 2019 order and therefore do not
constitute proper grounds for a motion for relief from judgment under Rule
85. We therefore lack jurisdiction to consider the claims Mother raised in
her motion for relief from judgment and thus dismiss this portion of the
appeal.2

II. Motion to Amend and Alter Judgment.

¶10 Mother’s motion to amend and alter judgment, however,
requested that the court amend a post-judgment minute entry concerning
Father’s discovery non-compliance. Because the issues raised in Mother’s
motion are different from issues that could have been raised in an appeal
from the underlying child support order, we have jurisdiction to address
Mother’s appeal from the superior court’s ruling on her motion to amend
the judgment. See Williams, 228 Ariz. at 164, ¶ 11.

¶11 The day after the March 2019 evidentiary hearing, Mother
filed a notice of non-compliance alleging that Father had failed to disclose
a child support worksheet, tax returns, pay stubs, childcare costs, and proof
of his current employment. After receiving the notice of non-compliance,
the court mistakenly noted in a minute entry that Mother had indicated that
she received this discovery from Father.

¶12 Mother filed a motion to amend and alter the court’s minute
entry under Rule 83, clarifying that she had not received any of the above-
mentioned discovery from Father. The court denied Mother’s motion,
stating that although it agreed that Father had failed to provide required
documents, it drew negative inferences from that fact and the court went
through Father’s provided documents in great detail with both parties.
Mother contends that the lack of discovery prejudiced her and that the
superior court abused its discretion by failing to correct its mistake in its
post-hearing minute entry. But although the superior court denied
Mother’s motion, the court still provided Mother with her requested relief
by stating that it drew negative inferences from Father’s failure to comply
with the court’s orders. Accordingly, Mother is not entitled to additional
relief.

2 Our ruling does not preclude Mother from filing a petition to modify
child support based on a change of circumstances if her income is
substantially lower than it was in May 2017.

4
 MATTHEWS v. ROBLES
Decision of the Court

III. Fraud on the Court.

¶13 Finally, Mother contends that Father committed fraud on the
court by misrepresenting various dates to both the superior court and to the
court of appeals. Fraud on the court occurs “[w]hen a party obtains a
judgment by concealing material facts and suppressing the truth with the
intent to mislead the court.” Clark v. Kreamer, 243 Ariz. 272, 275, ¶ 13 (App.
2017). “[T]he moving party must prove the fraud by clear and convincing
evidence.” Id.

¶14 In March 2017, Father filed a motion to amend and alter a
previous child support order requiring Mother to pay $47.05 in child
support. Before the superior court could rule on that motion, Father filed a
second petition to modify child support, avowing that “[n]o other cases
[were] pending in any court for modification of this court order.” The next
day, the superior court denied Father’s motion to amend and alter
judgment. Later, the superior court denied Father’s subsequent petition to
modify, Father appealed, and we reversed and remanded for an evidentiary
hearing. See Matthews, 1 CA-CV 17-0494, at *2, ¶¶ 6–7, 10.

¶15 Mother points to three misrepresentations: (1) the subsequent
petition’s avowal that no other cases were pending, (2) Father’s assertion
on appeal that his petition was filed the same day the court denied his
earlier motion, and (3) Father’s assertion that a sworn child support
worksheet was attached to his petition. But Mother did not squarely raise
a claim of fraud on the court in superior court, and she did not present
evidence to support her allegation that Father made material
misrepresentations with the intent to mislead.

¶16 Moreover, based on the record before us, we are unable to
discern whether Father’s petition to modify was filed prematurely or if it
was filed contemporaneously with the order denying Father’s motion to
alter or amend the judgment. Mother is not entitled to relief.

CONCLUSION

¶17 For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the appeal in part and
affirm in part.

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

5