Brimhall v. Brimhall

── Brimhall v. Brimhall ── Case No.: 1 CA-CV 25-0418 FC Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: April 03, 2026 Category: General NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE In re the Matter of: CHRISTOPHER BRIMHALL, Petitioner/Appellant, v. JULIA BRIMHALL, Respondent/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV 25-0418 FC FILED 04-03-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Navajo County No. S0900DO202300383 The Honorable Melinda K. Hardy, Judge VACATED AND REMANDED COUNSEL White Mountain Law Group, P.L.C, Show Low By Michael R. Ellsworth Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant Crider Law Firm, PLLC, Mesa By Brad J. Crider Counsel for Respondent/Appellee  BRIMHALL v. BRIMHALL Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge James B. Morse Jr. delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Andrew M. Jacobs and Judge Brian Y. Furuya joined. M O R S E, Judge: ¶1 Christopher Brimhall ("Father") appeals the superior court's June 2, 2025 ruling enforcing the parties' Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure ("Rule") 69 agreement as an order effective February 29, 2024. For the reasons set forth below, we vacate the superior court's ruling and remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 Julia Brimhall ("Mother") and Father have three minor children together. Father filed for divorce in November of 2023. In February 2024, the superior court entered the parties' consent decree and dissolved their marriage. The consent decree provided Father would have sole legal decision-making authority and sole physical custody for the parties' oldest child and that the parties would have joint legal decision- making authority and equal parenting time for their two younger children. On February 29, 2024, the parties entered into a Rule 69 agreement which further detailed the parties' parenting time arrangement for the two younger children. Neither party filed that agreement with the superior court. ¶3 In September 2024, six months after the consent decree, Mother filed a Petition to Modify Parenting Time and Division of DES Subsidy, asserting that the parties could not comply with the current order. Father responded by noting the existence of the parties' unfiled Rule 69 agreement and arguing for a different modification to parenting time. On October 22, 2024, Father filed the Rule 69 agreement with the superior court. Mother objected to the filing of the Rule 69 agreement and asked that the superior court take no action on it. Mother then filed an Amended Petition to Modify Parenting Time and Division of DES Subsidy ("amended petition") and a motion for temporary orders, which Father opposed. ¶4 On April 14, 2025, the superior court held a hearing on the Rule 69 agreement and the amended petition. After the hearing, the 2  BRIMHALL v. BRIMHALL Decision of the Court superior court found that the parties entered into a valid Rule 69 agreement on February 29, 2024, and the agreement was in the children's best interests. After further discussion, the superior court stated that it retroactively accepted the agreement as of February 29, 2024, even though the agreement had not been filed at that time. ¶5 After the hearing, Mother filed a Second Amended Verified Petition to Modify Parenting Time, Division of DES Subsidy and for Enforcement of Payment Community Debts ("seco