Faerber v. Genger
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: ) ) LIBBY FAERBER, ) ) Petitioner/Appellee, ) ) v. ) ) DALE EUGENE GENGER, ) ) Respondent/Appellant. ) ) ) __________________________________) DIVISION ONE FILED: 03-18-2010 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: DN 1 CA-CV 09-0296 DEPARTMENT D MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 28, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure) Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County Cause No. DO 2001-7215 The Honorable Randolph A. Bartlett AFFIRMED Libby Faerber Petitioner/Appellee Dale Eugene Genger Respondent/Appellant Prescott Lake Havasu O R O Z C O, Judge ¶1 Appellant Dale Eugene Genger (Genger) appeals the family court s order declining to address Genger s objection to the Arizona State Retirement System Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the family court s order. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 On August 6, 2002, Genger s marriage to Appellee Libby Faerber (Faerber) was dissolved. On June 4, 2008, Faerber filed a Notice of Filing the QDRO requesting that the family court sign the proposed QDRO. The family court signed and filed the QDRO on June 26, 2008. On March 13, 2009, almost nine months later, Genger filed an objection to the QDRO. court In an order dated March 25, 2009, the family declined to address Genger s concerns because his We jurisdiction objection was untimely. ¶3 Genger timely appealed.1 have pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes sections 12-2101.B and -120.21.A.1 (2003). DISCUSSION ¶4 Genger argues that the family court erred by declining to consider his objection because he was never given the opportunity to voice his opinion. 1 We review a Although the family court s minute entry order declining to address Genger s objection was unsigned, this Court suspended the appeal pursuant to Eaton Fruit Co. v. Cal. Spray-Chemical Corp., 102 Ariz. 129, 426 P.2d 397 (1967), to allow Genger an opportunity to obtain a signed order. The family court signed the order and filed it on July 21, 2009. 2 family court s conclusions of law de novo. Alley v. Stevens, 209 Ariz. 426, 428, ¶ 6, 104 P.3d 157, 159 (App. 2004). ¶5 Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure 81.C.12 provides in pertinent part: In case of a judgment other than for money or costs, or that all relief be denied, the judgment shall not be settled, approved, and signed until the expiration of five (5) days after the proposed form thereof has been served upon opposing counsel unless the opposite party or that party s counsel endorses on the judgment an approval as to form. When computing time for any rule that is less than eleven (11) days, intermediate Saturdays, holidays shall not be included. Sundays, and legal Ariz. R. Fam. L.P. 4.A. If a party is served by mail pursuant to Rule 43.C.2.c, five (5) calendar days shall be added to the prescribed period. Ariz. R. Fam. L.P. 4.D. ¶6 In this case, Faerber filed her Notice of Filing the QDRO on June 4, 2008. Faerber s certificate of service indicates she mailed a copy to Genger and his attorney. On June 26, 2008, the family court signed and filed the QDRO. Under the applicable Arizona rules, the family court was only required to wait until June 16, 2008, to sign the QDRO. 2 Unless otherwise specified, hereafter, an Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure is referred to as Rule ___. 3 Genger filed his objection to the QDRO on March 13, 2009, almost nine months after receiving a copy of the Notice of Filing the QDRO. ¶7 Genger does not argue that he did not receive a copy of the Notice of Filing the QDRO. Rather, Genger claims he was denied the opportunity to be heard. To the contrary, the family court provided Genger with more than the prescribed period of time to object prior to signing the QDRO. ¶8 Alternatively, received a copy of Genger the Notice contends of Filing that the when he QDRO, he believed that a court date would be scheduled to discuss the issue. However, Genger s understanding of the rules is not controlling. absent a Rule 81.C.2 does not provide for a hearing timely objection. When a party chooses to represent himself as Genger did, he is held to the same standards as an attorney and is expected to follow required procedures and local rules. In re Marriage of Williams, 219 Ariz. 546, 549, ¶ 13, 200 P.3d 1043, 1046 (App. 2008). A party s ignorance of the law is not an excuse for failing to comply with it. Id. 4 CONCLUSION ¶9 For the above mentioned reasons, we affirm the trial court s order declining to address Genger s objection as untimely. /S/ ___________________________________ PATRICIA A. OROZCO, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /S/ ____________________________________ DIANE M. JOHNSEN, Judge /S/ ____________________________________ JON W. THOMPSON, Judge 5
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.
