Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Haddad v. Geegieh, Ariz. Ct. App. (2016)
Haddad v. Geegieh, Ariz. Ct. App. (2016)
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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
v.
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Donn Kessler delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding
Judge Kenton D. Jones and Judge Randall M. Howe joined.
K E S S L E R, Judge:
2
HADDAD v. GEEGIEH
Decision of the Court
DISCUSSION
I. Standard of Review
7 Geegieh asserts his due process rights were violated by (1) not
allowing him two hours instead of the ninety minutes allotted for the
evidentiary hearing on his motion; (2) not permitting him to cross-examine
Haddad; and (3) ordering him to not file any motions without permission
of the court.
the trial setting forth good cause to enlarge the trial time.
Failure to timely file such a motion will be deemed a waiver
of any argument that more trial time is needed.
for other relief from the order denying his motion to terminate spousal
maintenance is not supported by the record. He did not seek the courts
permission to file such a motion and does not present any factual or legal
basis that would have supported a request for such relief. See State v. Kaiser,
109 Ariz. 244, 246 (1973) (citations omitted) (As a general rule evidence
cannot be reviewed on appeal in the absence of an offer of proof showing
that the excluded evidence would be admissible and relevant.). We
therefore reject Geegiehs assertions.
3 Geegieh also argues that the superior court included factors in its
ruling contrary to A.R.S. 25-501(A) (Supp. 2015). However, that statute
deals with the obligation of parents to provide for their minor children.
A.R.S. 25-501(A). Modification of spousal maintenance is provided for in
A.R.S. 25-319(B) and 25-327(A).
take-home pay is now actually less than zero because of new rent and
childcare obligations.5 Given the great disparity in incomes and Haddads
increased expenses, the court did not abuse its discretion in finding the
changes were not sufficiently substantial or continuous to merit
modification.
16 The superior court did not err in awarding fees. First, there is
a great financial disparity between Haddads and Geegiehs incomes.
Geegieh does not dispute that he currently makes more than $100,000
annually, whereas Haddad makes less than $30,000 a year. Substantial
evidence supports the courts finding.
5 Haddad testified and the court found that her rent is $1100 a month
and she pays $770 a month for childcare. Haddad testified she earns
approximately $1600 a month. The court therefore reasonably found that
Haddad was running approximately a $270 monthly deficit.
6
HADDAD v. GEEGIEH
Decision of the Court
CONCLUSION