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 Murray

Court of Appeals of Arizona, First Division

February 4, 2016

In re the Matter of: KAMEN RAE MURRAY, Petitioner/Appellant,
v.
SEAN NOEL PATRICK MURRAY, Respondent/Appellee

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County. No. V1300DO820080174. The Honorable Jeffrey G. Paupore, Judge Pro Tempore. The Honorable Mark M. Moore, Judge Pro Tempore.

Law Offices of Stone & Davis, PC, Scottsdale, By Kiilu Davis, Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant.

Aspey Watkins & Diesel, PLLC, Flagstaff, By Zachary J. Markham, Counsel for Respondent/Appellee.

Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Judge Kent E. Cattani and Judge John C. Gemmill joined.

OPINION

Page 79

Diane M. Johnsen, Judge

[¶1] We hold in this case that a statutory requirement under which a parent generally must wait a year to ask to change legal decision-making or parenting time applies to a request to relocate that implicates decisionmaking or parenting time. We also hold that Arizona Rule of Evidence 408 does not preclude evidence of negotiations offered to prove a settlement.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

[¶2] The dissolution decree of Kamen Rae Murray (" Mother" ) and Sean Noel Patrick Murray (" Father" ), entered in 2009, awarded them joint custody of their children. In January 2014, the court issued an order modifying parenting time. Pursuant to that order, Mother and Father continued to share joint legal decision-making and Father's parenting time was increased to six days every two weeks. The following month, after learning Mother intended to remarry and move with the children to Nebraska, Father filed a motion titled " Motion for Declaratory Relief; Alternatively, Motion to Prevent Relocation; Request for Attorney's Fees and Costs." In

Page 80

August 2014, after briefing and oral argument, the superior court granted Father's motion, ruling Mother could not take the children to Nebraska.

[¶3] Mother then filed a series of motions, including a " Motion for Clarification and/or Motion to Amend Under Advisement Ruling," an " Expedited Motion to Allow Petitioner's Witnesses to Appear Telephonically for the October 28 & 29, 2014 Trial," and a " Motion to Enforce Parties' Agreement." The superior court denied Mother's motions and awarded Father a portion of his attorney's fees and costs.

[¶4] Mother timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (" A.R.S." ) section 12-2101(A)(1) (2016).[1]

DISCUSSION

A. Section 25-411 and Relocation .


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.