Muse v. Goodson

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

KARA DENAI MUSE, Petitioner/Appellee,

v.

BILLY JARVAIS GOODSON, II, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CV 25-0208 FC
FILED 01-23-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. FC2021-002005
FC2021-091620
The Honorable Lisa C. Boddington, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Kara Denai Muse, Gilbert
Petitioner/Appellee

Alongi Law Firm PLLC, Phoenix
By Thomas P. Alongi, Elizabeth Alongi
Counsel for Respondent/Appellant
 MUSE v. GOODSON
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Michael S. Catlett delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Angela K. Paton and Judge Jennifer M. Perkins joined.

C A T L E T T, Judge:

¶1 Billy Goodson (“Father”) appeals the superior court’s denial
of his Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure (“Rule”) 85(a) motion
requesting reimbursement for overpaying child support. Kara Muse
(“Mother”) argues we lack jurisdiction. Because Father appeals only the
denial of his motion, not the underlying judgment, we have jurisdiction.
But because the superior court could not use Rule 85(a) in the manner
Father sought, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In August 2023, Father petitioned to modify his monthly child
support contribution from $1,891 to $13. Mother responded by requesting
$2,004 a month. The court held a hearing during which Father explained
why the court should modify his contribution. Father did not request
reimbursement for payments made after his modification petition but
before the court’s ruling.

¶3 On April 9, 2024, the court modified Father’s child support
obligation, ordering him to pay $1,304 a month effective October 1, 2023
(“modification judgment”). Father moved for clarification about how his
prior “overpayment should be rectified.” The court construed that request
as another motion to modify and denied it. Several months later, Father
moved for relief from judgment under Rule 85(a), arguing the court
“neglected to explain how Mother would erase the ~5K deficit” and
asserting that the court “must” act. Father requested “an order specifying
how Mother should reimburse him for the overpayment . . . from October
2023 to May 2024.” The court denied the Rule 85(a) motion (“Rule 85(a)
order”). It concluded that, “pursuant to A.R.S. § 25-527, a request for
reimbursement due to overpayment of child support may be filed once the
obligation to pay support has terminated,” and that could not yet occur
because child had not yet emancipated. Six days later, Father appealed the
Rule 85(a) order.

2
 MUSE v. GOODSON
Decision of the Court

JURISDICTION

¶4 Mother contends we lack jurisdiction because Father did not
timely appeal the modification judgment and the appellate rules do “not
toll or extend” the time to do so.

¶5 Father’s notice of appeal says he is appealing the Rule 85(a)
order. Father has not appealed the modification judgment. Had Father
attempted to appeal that judgment, Mother’s jurisdictional argument might
have merit. See Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 85(c)(2) (“Timely filing a motion may
affect the time in which to file an appeal of the judgment as provided in
ARCAP 9(e)(1)(E).”) (emphasis added); Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 9(e)(1)(E)
(“[T]he time to file a notice of appeal . . . begins to run from the entry by
the superior court clerk of a signed written order disposing of . . . relief
under Rule 85 . . . if the motion is filed not later than 25 days after entry of
the judgment.”). But Father made no such attempt.

¶6 Contrary to Mother’s argument, we have jurisdiction to
review the Rule 85(a) order—independent of the modification judgment—
if (1) the issues decided in the Rule 85(a) order are “different from those that
could have been raised on appeal from the underlying judgment,” and (2)
the Rule 85(a) order “affect[s] the judgment or relate[s] to its enforcement.”
Vincent v. Shanovich, 243 Ariz. 269, 271 ¶ 9 (2017); A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(2).
The modification judgment resolved one issue—whether to modify
Father’s child support payments. The Rule 85(a) order resolved a different
issue—whether Father was entitled to reimbursement for overpaying child
support. The Rule 85(a) order also affects the modification judgment or
relates to its enforcement. It reaffirmed Father’s financial obligations in the
modification judgment but left any overpayment unresolved. The Rule
85(a) order is therefore a special order made after final judgment, and we
have jurisdiction. See Vincent, 243 Ariz. at 271 ¶ 9; A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(2).

DISCUSSION

¶7 We review an order denying a Rule 85 motion for an abuse of
discretion. Johnson v. Edelstein, 252 Ariz. 230, 233 ¶ 12 (App. 2021). A court
abuses its discretion when it “commits an error of law in reaching a
discretionary conclusion . . . or the record fails to provide substantial
evidence to support the trial court’s finding.” Duckstein v. Wolf, 230 Ariz.
227, 231 ¶ 8 (App. 2012) (cleaned up). We review the interpretation and
application of court rules de novo. Id. If language in the Arizona Rules of
Family Procedure “is substantially the same as language in the civil rules,
case law interpreting the language of the civil rules will apply[.]” Ariz. R.

3
 MUSE v. GOODSON
Decision of the Court

Fam. Law P. 1(c); compare Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 85(a) with Ariz. R. Civ. P.
60(a).

¶8 Rule 85(a) provides that “[a] court must correct a clerical
mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission if one is found in a
judgment.” Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 85(a). “A clerical error occurs when the
written judgment fails to accurately set forth the court’s decision.” Vincent,
243 Ariz. at 271 ¶ 8. Rule 85(a) applies when “[t]he error is inadvertent,”
which can take the form of “a misstatement or an omission” or some other
form. Id. Rule 85(a) does not permit the “changing of a judgment . . . which
was entered as the court intended.” Ace Auto. Prods., Inc. v. Van Duyne, 156
Ariz. 140, 142–43 (App. 1987). Put differently, Rule 85(a) “may not be used
to correct ‘judicial errors’—to supply something that the court could have
decided, but did not.” Egan–Ryan Mech. Co. v. Cardon Meadows Dev. Corp.,
169 Ariz. 161, 166 (App. 1990). The determinative question is this: did the
superior court’s alleged omission “occur[] in rendering judgment or in
recording the judgment rendered”? Ace Auto Prods., Inc., 156 Ariz. at 142.
Only in the latter situation does Rule 85(a) apply.

¶9 But that latter situation is missing here. Father does not argue
the court erred in recording the modification judgment. He argues only
that the court erred by not requiring reimbursement, something the court
could have attempted to require but did not. Thus, the court’s alleged
omission occurred in rendering judgment, not recording it, and Rule 85(a)
does not apply. See Ace Auto. Prods., Inc., 156 Ariz. at 142.

¶10 The court received dueling petitions to modify child support,
and the modification judgment resolved them by reducing Father’s
contribution. Before the modification judgment, Father never requested
reimbursement should the court reduce child support. Because Father did
not raise the reimbursement issue before the modification judgment, it
cannot be said that the court’s silence on the issue was “a mistake arising
from oversight or omission” or that the judgment did not accurately set
forth the court’s decision on modifying child support. Ariz. R. Fam. Law P.
85(a); Vincent, 243 Ariz. at 271 ¶ 8. After the court accurately recorded the
modification judgment, Father raised reimbursement, claiming the court
erred in failing to require it.

¶11 Whether a superior court may require reimbursement before
emancipation is an open legal question. See In re Marriage of Allen, 241 Ariz.
314, 318 ¶ 19 (App. 2016) (“[I]t might also be permissible for the court to
order . . . reimburse[ment] . . . at this time by deviating from the
Guidelines[.]”) (emphasis added); Amadore v. Lifgren, 245 Ariz. 509, 518 ¶ 26

4
 MUSE v. GOODSON
Decision of the Court

(App. 2018) (vacating and remanding “for reconsideration of whether
reimbursement of overpayments, if any, is authorized by law, and if so,
whether it is appropriate to allow reimbursement in this case”); but see
Brucklier v. Brucklier, 253 Ariz. 579, 585 ¶ 31–32 (App. 2022) (the court’s
refusal to reimburse overpayment was “accurate for overpayments above a
final child support order”). We need not resolve that question here.

¶12 It is sufficient for present purposes that, even if the court
committed legal error in omitting reimbursement from the modification
judgment (again, we do not suggest it did), that was a judicial, not a clerical,
error. So Rule 85(a) was not a proper procedural vehicle for Father to raise
such an alleged error. See State v. Minjares, 223 Ariz. 54, 60 ¶ 26 (App. 2009)
(“[A]fter it lost the appeal, the State asked the superior court to reach a legal
conclusion that A.R.S. § 41–622(F) applied to this case and required revision
of the interest rate. This does not constitute correction of a clerical error and
is not authorized by Rule 60(a).”). The court did not abuse its discretion by
denying Father’s Rule 85(a) motion.

CONCLUSION

¶13 We affirm the Rule 85(a) order.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

5