Hines v. Hines
| Decision Date | 11 July 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,CA-CIV,1 |
| Citation | 707 P.2d 969,146 Ariz. 565 |
| Parties | Marriage of Betty June HINES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Murrel Thomas HINES and Diane M. Hines, Respondents-Appellees. 7423. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Appellant Betty June Hines (Betty) divorced appellee Murrel Thomas Hines (Murrel) on November 25, 1969. Betty got custody of their four minor daughters and Murrel was ordered to pay $350 per month child support. Murrel married appellee Diane Hines (Diane) in 1970. They have two children.
Since the divorce, Murrel was constantly in arrears in paying child support. Betty sued him for the arrearage and won a judgment of $21,500 plus costs and attorney's fees. Murrel owed approximately $45,000 but the statute of limitations barred recovery of the remainder. This judgment is not appealed.
Betty was unable to collect the judgment. She alleges that Murrel frustrated collection by repeatedly terminating his employment, avoiding ownership of substantial assets, and transferring assets. She further alleges that Diane aided this avoidance by supporting Murrel during his unemployment and by abetting the title transfers. After the judgment against Murrel, he and Diane executed an agreement providing that in consideration for her support during his years of unemployment, her future wages were to be her separate property (rather than community property). See A.R.S. §§ 25-211 and 25-213. We need not consider the efficacy of this agreement.
Betty sought an assignment of the wages of both Murrel and Diane in order to collect the child support judgment against Murrel. The trial court granted Betty's petition to have Murrel's wages assigned pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 25-215(B) and 25-323(B). However, the court refused an assignment of Diane's wages pursuant to the same statutes. Betty appeals the denial of the assignment of Diane's wages. We agree with that refusal and affirm the judgment.
The main issue raised by this appeal is whether a wife's wages are subject to assignment pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 25-215(B) and 25-323(B) to satisfy her husband's pre-marital child support obligation.
The community is liable for premarital debts or other liabilities of one spouse "only to the extent of the value of that spouse's contribution to the community property which would have been such spouse's separate property if single." A.R.S. § 25-215(B). If "a person obligated to pay child support" is in arrears for an amount equal to at least one month's child support, the court shall order him to assign part of his earnings to the person entitled to receive child support. A.R.S. § 25-323(B).
Diane's wages may not be reached to satisfy Murrel's child support obligation. Child support is a premarital liability of Murrel. A.R.S. § 25-215(B) permits it to be paid out of the new community's property only to the extent of Murrel's contribution that would have been his separate property if he were single. Diane's wages do not satisfy this test. A.R.S. § 25-215(B) clearly precludes assignment of Diane's wages to satisfy Murrel's premarital obligation.
Betty relies on pre-s 25-215(B) caselaw allowing alimony obligations (and by analogy, child support) to be paid out of a spouse's share of the new marriage's community property. E.g., Gardner v. Gardner, 95 Ariz. 202, 388 P.2d 418 (1964). Prior to 1973 Arizona's community property law prohibited the payment of any premarital debts out of the community property. Rev.Stat.1887 p 2106 (repealed 1973). The final result of this law was often harsh. Gardner allowed a limited exception to this statute by distinguishing an alimony obligation from a contractual debt.
Essentially, our decision in this case rests on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Flexmaster Aluminum Awning Co., Inc. v. Hirschberg
... ... This was known as the "two dollar bankruptcy" because a marriage license ... [173 Ariz. 88] cost two dollars. See Hines v. Hines, 146 Ariz. 565, 567, 707 P.2d 969, 971 (App.1985); Schilling v. Embree, 118 Ariz. 236, 238, 575 P.2d 1262, 1264 (App.1977) ... ...
-
In re Leon G.
... ... Superior Court, 112 Ariz. 292, 295, 541 P.2d 392, 395 (1975) (rewriting unconstitutional statute a legislative function); Hines v. Hines, 146 Ariz. 565, 567, 707 P.2d 969, 971 (1985) ("[c]ourts will not read into a statute something which is not within the manifest intention ... ...
-
Marriage of Pacific, In re
... ... In Hines v. Hines, this court rejected a mother's claim for assignment of a portion of the father's current spouse's wages, holding that child support is a ... ...
-
New PCR International v. The Industrial Commission of Arizona, 2 CA-IC 2004-0007 (AZ 9/24/2004), 2 CA-IC 2004-0007
...that result, we will not infer that the legislature actually intended to override those prior decisions. See Hines v. Hines, 146 Ariz. 565, 567, 707 P.2d 969, 971 (App. 1985) ("Courts will not read into a statute something which is not within the manifest intention of the legislature as gat......
-
In Good Times and in Debt: the Evolution of Marital Agency and the Meaning of Marriage
...of the different states are all at sixes and sevens"). 89. The effect became known as "marital bankruptcy." See, e.g., Hines v. Hines, 707 P.2d 969, 971 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985); Schilling v. Embree, 575 P.2d 1262, 1264 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977). See generally Carroll, supra note 79, at 8-9. 90. D......