Hickman v. Hickman
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE In re the Marriage of: ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ANTHONY H. HICKMAN, Petitioner/Appellee, v. APRIL J. HICKMAN, Respondent/Appellant. The Michael Court, J. Presiding Brown and Judge John C. No. DIVISION ONE FILED: 12/07/2010 RUTH WILLINGHAM, ACTING CLERK BY: GH 1 CA-CV 10-0081 DEPARTMENT B Maricopa County Superior Court No. FC2009-090638 DECISION ORDER Diane M. Gemmill Johnsen and Judges participating, having reviewed the briefs and the record in this matter and having heard oral argument on November 9, 2010, has taken judicial notice of the minute entry order entered by the superior court on October 8, 2010, following proceedings in open court entered on on October 6, 2010. The settlement of the parties made and the record before the superior court on October 6, 2010 is binding upon the parties. See Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure 69. The October 6 settlement resolves each of the issues concerning jurisdiction of the Arizona court and custody of the children presented by the appeal in this case. To the extent the appeal challenged the superior court s prior orders with respect to those matters, the October 6 settlement moots those issues, and the appeal as to those issues is dismissed. The court s October order 6 settlement that Mother did not either address return the half of superior the gun collection to [Father] or pay him $10,000.00 within 30 days of the date the decree[.] Father for his violate the because Father possess share order guns. of has Because the order permits Mother to pay of 3101(A)(7)(b) (2010). collection, protection. been See the convicted A.R.S. §§ the Mother of a order also felony, 13-904(A)(5) did argues he not that may (2010), not 13- The order from which Mother appealed, however, does not preclude Father from transferring possession of the guns to another party. Finally, during oral argument, Mother s counsel asserted that the October 6 settlement did not resolve Mother s appeal from the superior court s award of attorney s fees against her. We note that Mother s motion for new trial or to set aside did not address the issue of attorney s fees; nor did she raise any argument regarding attorney s fees in either of her briefs on appeal. For these reasons, we decline to address the superior court s award of attorney s fees. We appeal. deny both parties requests for attorney s fees on Mother s request is based on A.R.S. § 25-324 (Supp. 2 2009). We disagree that Father s positions on appeal have been unreasonable. from Mother. Moreover, we lack current financial information Without citing any legal authority, Father argues that he is entitled to fees on appeal because Mother s appeal is frivolous and meritless. We deny Father s request. /s/ DIANE M. JOHNSEN, Presiding Judge 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
