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 Marriage of Stein

Court of Appeals of Arizona, First Division

December 8, 2015

In re the Marriage of: JAY DAVID STEIN, Petitioner/Appellant,
v.
JILL LYNN STEIN, Respondent/Appellee

Editorial Note:

Counsel is cautioned to make an independent determination of the status of this case. This decision is subject to further appellate review. Motions for reconsideration or petitions for review to the Arizona Supreme Court may be pending.

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County. No. FC2012-003130. The Honorable Joseph P. Mikitish, Judge.

DePasquale & Schmidt, PC, Phoenix, By Mark J. DePasquale, Co-Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant.

Therese R. McElwee, PC, Phoenix, By Therese R. McElwee, Co-Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant.

Jill Lynn Stein, Scottsdale, Respondent/Appellee.

Presiding Judge Margaret H. Downie delivered the Opinion of the Court, in which Judge Patricia A. Orozco and Judge Maurice Portley joined.

OPINION

Page 709

Margaret H. Downie, Judge.

[¶1] Jay David Stein (" Father" ) appeals a child support order. Because he filed a timely request for findings of fact and conclusions of law, the family court was required to set forth the facts supporting its substantial deviation from the Child Support Guidelines (" Guidelines" ).[1] It did not do so. We therefore vacate the child support order and remand to the family court for additional findings.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

[¶2] Father and Jill Lynn Stein (" Mother" ) married in 2005 and divorced in 2014. They have four minor children. Father's annual gross income exceeds $3 million. At the time of dissolution, Mother did not work outside the home. The parties signed a premarital agreement that stated neither party would receive spousal maintenance if they divorced.

[¶3] Before trial, Father made a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law. The family court subsequently entered a decree that, among other things, awarded Father sole legal decision-making authority and named him the primary residential parent. Mother received limited supervised parenting time consisting of one afternoon per week and one overnight on alternating weekends. Father is responsible for 90% of the supervision costs associated with Mother's parenting time.

[¶4] The court concluded that a deviation from the Guidelines was appropriate and ordered Father to pay child support to Mother in the sum of $7500 per month. Father moved for additional findings of fact and a new trial. The family court denied the motion for new trial and granted the request for additional findings only as to the attorneys' fees awarded to Mother. This timely ...


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.