Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Camasura

Court of Appeals of Arizona, First Division

August 27, 2015

In re the Matter of: KRISTIN CAMASURA, Petitioner/Appellee,
v.
BRENDAN ANTONIO CAMASURA, Respondent/Appellant

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County. FC2012-052410. The Honorable Danielle J. Viola, Judge.

Daly Law Firm, PLLC, Scottsdale, By Douglas A. Daly, Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee.

Cosmas Onyia, P.C., Phoenix, By Cosmas Onyia, Counsel for Respondent/Appellant.

John C. Gemmill, Presiding Judge delivered the decision of the Court, in which Kenton D. Jones, Judge and Donn Kessler, Judge joined.

OPINION

Page 601

John C. Gemmill, Judge:

[¶1] Brendan Antonio Camasura (" Husband" ) appeals from a decree of dissolution of marriage. Because Husband's notice of appeal was premature and ineffective to invoke our appellate jurisdiction, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

BACKGROUND

[¶2] Kristin Camasura (" Wife" ) filed a petition for dissolution of non-covenant marriage, with children, in October 2012. After trial, the family court ordered dissolution of the marriage by a signed minute entry on March 12, 2014 (" March 12 order" ). The March 12 order did not address legal decision-making and parenting time, although those issues had been addressed by a stipulation between the parties. The March 12 order also did not determine the amount of attorney fees the court was going to award from Husband to Wife. The court ordered Wife to submit, by March 24, 2014, a proposed form of decree of dissolution consistent with the March 12 order and an application for attorney fees.

[¶3] On April 4, 2014, Husband filed a notice of appeal. On April 16, 2014, the family court issued an order advising the parties that the March 12 order was " not intended to be a final order for purposes of appeal because it does not address all of the issues anticipated to be included in the Decree of Dissolution." The court explained that it had not ruled on the issue of legal-decision making, parenting time, and the amount of attorney fees to be awarded. The court further concluded that the notice of appeal did not divest it of jurisdiction, citing In re Marriage of Johnson & Gravino, 231 Ariz. 228, 293 P.3d 504 (App. 2012). Finally, the court noted that Wife had lodged the proposed decree and application for attorney fees, and the court extended the deadline for Husband to file objections.

[¶4] On May 1, 2014, the court issued an order awarding attorney fees to Wife and issued a thirteen page decree of dissolution (" Decree" ). The Decree included the substance of the March 12 order and also contained the court's ruling on parenting time,

Page 602

legal-decision making, and attorney fees. Husband did not thereafter file a new or ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.