In re the Matter of Tara Jane Brown v. Jeffrey R. Smith

Phoenix, Arizona family law lawyers represented father and mother in a divorce.

¶2 Father and Mother married in 1999 and divorced by consent decree in 2014. Among other things, the parties agreed to a parenting plan and to share joint legal decision-making authority for their three children.



¶3 In the years that followed, the parents' willingness to work together on matters concerning their children eroded, resulting in ongoing litigation. In 2021, Father petitioned the court to hold Mother in contempt for failing to include him in decisions about the children's schooling, medical care, and activities. Two months later, Mother petitioned to modify legal decision-making authority and parenting time.



¶4 The court held a trial on both petitions in 2023, denying Father's petition for contempt as well as Mother's request for sole legal decision-making authority. The court did, however, adjust Father's parenting time and child support obligation. And, after finding that both parents "acted unreasonably in the litigation," and Father had "considerably more resources" than Mother, the court ordered Father to "pay a portion, presumably 40%, of Mother's reasonable attorney fees and costs." The court later awarded Mother $12,500 in fees and costs (approximately twenty-five per cent of the total amount she requested).



¶5 Father timely appealed that award. We have jurisdiction under Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), -2101(A)(1).



* * *



Brown v. Smith, 1 CA-CV 24-0164 FC (Ariz. App. Oct 17, 2024)

¶14 We affirm the superior court's award of attorney's fees to Mother. Mother requests an award of attorney's fees on appeal under A.R.S. §§ 12-349(A)(1)-(3) and -324. After considering the relevant factors and in an exercise of our discretion, we deny her request. Because Mother is the successful party on appeal, she is entitled to recover taxable costs upon compliance with ARCAP 21. See A.R.S. § 12-342(A).