Honsey v. Honsey, 2
| Decision Date | 30 July 1980 |
| Docket Number | CA-CIV,No. 2,2 |
| Citation | 126 Ariz. 336,615 P.2d 14 |
| Parties | Shirley HONSEY, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Conrad H. HONSEY, Respondent/Appellant. 3582. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Appellant-husband raises two questions for consideration on appeal. The first concerns the propriety of hearing both the custody issue and the child support issue together in a divorce action. The second is whether the trial court can hear the issue of child custody prior to resolving all other issues including the amount of child support.
The wife has failed to file an answering brief. Where the appellant raises debatable issues, failure to file an answering brief constitutes a confession of reversible error. Geiler v. Arizona Bank, 24 Ariz.App. 266, 537 P.2d 994 (1975). We need not rely on a confession of error, however, because the answer to the questions is clear. A.R.S. Sec. 25-328 provides:
The record shows that the trial court violated this statute. The issue of child custody was heard prior to the resolution of all the other issues including the amount of child support established by the court. While neither counsel objected to the procedure, the provisions of A.R.S. Sec. 25-328 are clearly jurisdictional.
All the provisions of the decree of dissolution are vacated and set aside except the one dissolving the marriage. 1 That part of the decree dissolving the marriage is affirmed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
1 Appellant does not challenge the finding that the marriage is irretrievably broken. See A.R.S. Sec. 25-325.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estes v. Superior Court, In and For Maricopa County, 16649-SA
...by the court, then the issues of custody or visitation may be heard. Division Two of the Court of Appeals, in Honsey v. Honsey, 126 Ariz. 336, 615 P.2d 14 (App.1980), described the requirements of the statute as "clearly jurisdictional." Id. at 337, 615 P.2d at 15. The court did not set for......
-
Marriage of Hinkston, In re
...P.2d 1008 (1970). Appellant contends however that the failure to follow A.R.S. § 25-328 is jurisdictional, citing Honsey v. Honsey, 126 Ariz. 336, 615 P.2d 14 (App.1980) and thus may be raised at anytime. In Honsey, a domestic relations case in which no answering brief was filed, Division T......