WEBSTER v. BOLSER
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 Matter of: ) ) EDNA MARIE WEBSTER, ) ) Petitioner/Appellee, ) ) v. ) ) DANNY LEE BOLSER, ) ) Respondent/Appellant. ) ) __________________________________) DIVISION ONE FILED: 2/26/2013 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: mjt No. 1 CA-CV 12-0095 DEPARTMENT C Yuma County Superior Court No. S1400DR200100203 S1400DR200101527 DECISION ORDER The court has reviewed the record and briefing in this appeal, and the superior court s order entered January 15, 2013. After consideration, and for the reasons that follow, IT IS ORDERED dismissing this appeal. In 2001, Danny Lee Bolser ( Father ) and Edna Marie Webster ( Mother ) their were minor awarded child, custodial parent. and joint legal Mother was and physical designated custody the of primary In 2007, Father obtained primary physical custody of the child. In 2011, Father filed a petition to modify custody, requesting sole legal and physical custody of the child with reasonable parenting time for Mother. After an evidentiary primary hearing, the superior court ruled that 1 CA-CV 12-0095 Page 2 custody of the minor child shall remain as previously ordered, and awarded Mother parenting time. Father timely brought this appeal, arguing that his request for custody modification was improperly denied. He did not challenge the parenting time award. Because the superior court had not supported its ruling with the express findings required under A.R.S. ยงยง 25-403 and 25-411(L), we suspended the appeal and revested jurisdiction in the superior court for the entry of findings. The superior court entered the appropriate findings in a January 2013 order, and the appeal was reinstated. We now dismiss the appeal as moot. The superior court s January 2013 order grants Father the very relief he sought in this appeal -- a change in custody awarding physical custody of the child to Father. sole legal and Though this order appears inconsistent with the order from which Father appealed, it means that Father may not now gain any relief from this appeal that he has not already received from the superior court. Dismissal of the appeal is therefore appropriate. The superior court has jurisdiction over any future proceedings. /s/ ___________________________________ PETER B. SWANN, Judge 2
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.
