After Wife filed for a divorce, Husband promised to ‘bury her’ and retained a famous (or infamous) family law firm in Phoenix. The parties were young and their marriage was very brief — about a year — but Husband nonetheless demanded spousal maintenance and claimed a community interest in the marital home.
Wife originally retained another divorce attorney who ignored her telephone calls and messages and passively allowed Husband to enlarge the litigation and cause Wife to incur additional expense. Wife’s original attorney also failed to timely respond to Husband’s discovery requests, which resulted in Husband’s attorney moving the family court to compel the responses and order financial sanctions, including Husband’s attorney’s fees, against Wife pursuant to ARFLP Rule 65.
When Wife terminated her previous attorney, she wanted to know that the next law firm would be more aggressive. She researched several divorce attorneys and chose our firm based on our reputation for litigation practice.
When we appeared, we immediately objected to Husband’s motion to compel. Our objection was successful and helped Wife avoid a couple thousand dollars in financial sanctions. We then aggressively attacked Husband’s farcical claim for spousal maintenance. We gathered evidence to prove that he did not qualify for spousal maintenance pursuant to A.R.S. § 25-319(A). We requested a settlement conference to accelerate resolution more affordably than going straight to trial.
The settlement conference was mediated by a former family law judge who agreed with our position that Husband did not qualify for spousal maintenance. She also confirmed our position that the marital residence and a savings account were Wife’s sole and separate property, unencumbered by any community lien or community interest. This forced Husband to reconsider and ultimately relinquish his unreasonable positions. The case promptly settled in Wife’s favor and at a fraction of the cost Wife had paid to her previous attorney.