One issue that frequently comes up in family law consultation is whether the parties’ understandings and agreements can be used for enforcement or for obtaining a court order requiring compliance. Many prospective clients are surprised to learn that something as simple as email exchange may constitute a binding agreement, while verbal agreements privately made between the parties may be unenforceable. This writing discusses some of the major issues to consider when looking at a possible agreement regarding a family law case in Arizona.
As a starting point, in an Arizona family court, agreements are controlled by Rule 69 of the Arizona Rules of Family Law Procedure. Rule 69(a) states that:
An agreement between the parties is valid and binding on the parties if: (1) the agreement is in writing and signed by the parties personally or by counsel on a party’s behalf; (2) the agreement’s terms are stated on the record before a judge, commissioner, judge pro tempore, or certified reporter; or (3) the agreement’s terms are stated in an audio recording made before a mediator or a settlement conference officer appointed by the court.
Ariz. R. Fam. L. Pro. 69(a). Up front, it is important to recognize that oral agreements, when made off the record and made outside the context of a mediation or settlement conference, are not likely to satisfy the requirements of a valid, Rule 69 agreement. See id. Sometimes, parties will carry on for a stretch of time with a common understanding of how things will be handled – unfortunately, few things in life are certain. Changes in living circumstances, finances, or even just the natural ebb and flow of relationships may cause a party to want to renege on their non-binding agreements. As such, minding the requirements of a valid Rule 69 agreement will go a long way to helping someone understand their prospects in litigation.
An area of confusion that often arises with litigants is whether signed emails or text messages constitute a writing for purposes of Rule 69(a)(1)’s writing requirement. In the 2016, the Arizona Court of Appeals considered a case in which the trial court declined to adopt an alleged Rule 69 agreement that was based on e-mails and text messages. See In Re: The Matter of Kamen Rae Murray, No. 1 CA–CV 15–0170 FC, Ariz. Ct. App. (Feb. 4, 2016). The Arizona Court of Appeals considered and rejected the argument that the electronic documents could not be considered as proof of an agreement, writing that “Rule 69 would not bar the court from finding that Father’s writings constitute a written agreement enforceable under Rule 69.” Id.
Additionally, to constitute a valid and binding agreement, the writings must demonstrate that a mutual understanding has been reached between the parties. For example, in Ames v. Ames, the Arizona Court of Appeals rejected an argument that there was binding Rule 69 agreement, evidenced in emails, which extended the termination date of spousal maintenance. Ames v. Ames, 370 P.3d 115 (Ariz. App. 2016). In addressing the issue, the Arizona Court of Appeals stated that “[a]n agreement is formed only when a manifestation of mutual assent occurs ‘based on objective evidence, not the hidden intent of the parties.’” Id. (citation omitted). In other words, the parties on both sides of the agreement must indicate in some manner that they have accepted its terms. See id. Some call this a “meeting of the minds.”
Another issue that sometimes comes up with Rule 69 agreements is whether a party’s attorney had their client’s authority to accept a proposal. This issue is a bit more complicated because it depends in part on what the attorney is actually authorized to accept and on the nature of the agreement. In Garn, the Arizona Court of Appeals observed: “It is well settled that an attorney has no implied or apparent authority to settle or compromise a claim and therefore may not stipulate to a compromise settlement of a pending lawsuit without the client’s express, actual authorization.” Garn v. Garn, 745 P.2d 604 (Ariz. App. 1987). “As part of an attorney’s apparent authority, an attorney is responsible for the day-to-day tactical decisions involved in the process of litigation.” Id. So, while an attorney has the implied authority to make “day-to-day tactical decisions” that will bind a client, the law typically requires an attorney to obtain their client’s actual authority before entering into an agreement that will “settle or compromise a claim” of the client. Id.
It is important to note that a valid Rule 69 agreement, is not necessarily a binding Rule 69 agreement. Rule 69 states that “[a]n agreement under this rule is not binding on the court until it is submitted to and approved by the court as provided by law.” Ariz. R. Fam. L. Pro. 69(b). In Arizona, the law charges the family court with making determinations about what is in the best interests of a minor child in a child custody case and with deciding what is fair and equitable with respect to the property rights of the parties. See ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 25-403(A) (requiring that the court determine the best interests of a minor child when making child custody orders); ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 25-318(A) (requiring that the court equitably divide community property). Ultimately, before a Rule 69 agreement is binding and enforceable in court, the court will have to first approve the agreement.
There are many other issues and questions that might arise with Rule 69 agreements. If you are involved in or facing a possible family law matter in the State of Arizona, and have questions about valid/binding agreements to resolve the case or which may require enforcement, it is advisable to consult with an experienced family law attorney who can provide you with guidance based on the specifics of your situation and who can help you understand your rights and obligations. If you are in need of an Arizona attorney to help you with a family law case in the State of Arizona, contact Huffman-Shayeb Law, PLLC to schedule a consultation.
