In re Mitton, 041117 AZAPP1, 1 CA-CV 15-0769 FC
|Docket Nº:||1 CA-CV 15-0769 FC|
|Opinion Judge:||THUMMA, Judge.|
|Party Name:||In re the Matter of: JUSTIN TAIT MITTON, Petitioner/Appellant, v. CANDICE H. MITTON, Respondent/Appellee.|
|Attorney:||Ellsworth Family Law P.C., Mesa By Glenn D. Halterman Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant Bowman and Brooke LLP, Phoenix By Travis M. Wheeler, Amanda E. Heitz Counsel for Respondent/Appellee|
|Judge Panel:||Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Patricia A. Orozco joined.|
|Case Date:||April 11, 2017|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Arizona|
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. FC2012-000532 The Honorable Pamela Hearn Svoboda, Judge
Ellsworth Family Law P.C., Mesa By Glenn D. Halterman Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant
Bowman and Brooke LLP, Phoenix By Travis M. Wheeler, Amanda E. Heitz Counsel for Respondent/Appellee
Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Patricia A. Orozco 1 joined.
¶1 Justin Mitton (Father) appeals from the superior court's post- decree order modifying child support. Because child support was improperly calculated, the order is vacated and the issue of child support is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 Candice Mitton (Mother) and Father divorced by consent decree entered in 2013. The decree provided Mother and Father equal parenting time with their children, with Father paying Mother child support. Mother and Father currently have three minor children: a daughter, who is 17, and twin boys, who are 10.
¶3 Father later filed a petition to modify child support, which was addressed at an August 2015 evidentiary hearing. Mother and Father testified that, with their consent, their daughter was living with Mother full time, while the twins continued to have equal time with each parent. Because their daughter was living with Mother full time, Mother argued that Father needed to pay more child support. The court took the matter under advisement and directed counsel to file child support worksheets setting forth their positions. Mother filed two worksheets (one for their daughter living solely with Mother and one for the twins reflecting equal parenting time with Mother and Father). Father timely objected, arguing Mother's worksheets overstated his child support obligation, and filed competing worksheets, including a combined worksheet for all three children. In a subsequent ruling, the court set child support in an amount calculated by adding together the two worksheets Mother had filed.
¶4 This court has jurisdiction over Father's timely appeal from that ruling pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) sections...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP