Layton v. Layton

── Layton v. Layton ── Case No.: 1 CA-CV 25-0237 FC Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: March 24, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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 Marriage of: JENNIFER M. LAYTON, Petitioner/Appellee, v. NATHAN EMERY LAYTON, Respondent/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV 25-0237 FC FILED 03-24-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. FC2022-093314 The Honorable David E. McDowell, Judge AFFIRMED APPEARANCES Ellsworth Family Law, PC, Mesa By Glenn D. Halterman, Steven M. Ellsworth Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee Nathan E. Layton, Colorado Springs, CO Respondent/Appellant  LAYTON v. LAYTON Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge David B. Gass delivered the decision of the court, in which Judge Anni Hill Foster and Chief Judge Randall M. Howe joined. G A S S, Judge: ¶1 Nathan Layton, father, appeals the superior court’s decree terminating his marriage to Jennifer Layton, mother. Father argues the following: 1. The superior court should not have allowed his lawyer to withdraw about 11 months before trial; 2. The superior court should have compelled the parties to participate in mediation; and 3. The superior court should have allowed his business valuation expert to testify and lay foundation for the expert’s report even though father did not file a pretrial statement. ¶2 Because the superior court did not abuse its discretion on those 3 issues, the court affirms. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶3 The court views the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the superior court’s ruling. See Lehn v. Al-Thanayyan, 246 Ariz. 277, 283 ¶ 14 (App. 2019). ¶4 Mother filed for divorce on July 28, 2022. The court entered temporary orders granting mother custody of the children, awarding mother child support and spousal maintenance and ordering joint legal decision-making. Seventeen months later, mother moved to amend the temporary orders seeking sole legal decision-making or granting her final decision-making authority, as well as modifying father’s visitation. The superior court held an evidentiary hearing on that matter on January 29, 2024. The case went to trial on December 17, 2024, almost 11 months later. In the meantime, the superior court designated the case as complex. 2  LAYTON v. LAYTON Decision of the Court I. The superior court allowed father’s counsel to withdraw about 11 months before the trial. ¶5 Before the temporary orders hearing, father’s counsel sought the court’s permission to withdraw over father’s objection. The superior court addressed the motion at the hearing. ¶6 The motion to withdraw cited Ethical Rule 1.16(a)(1), which says, “the representation will result in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law.” The motion then cited Ethical Rule 1.16(b), which says counsel can withdraw from representing a client if it will not harm the client’s interests; the client persists on engaging in criminal or fraudulent actions; the client insists on actions counsel finds repugnant; the client fails to meet obligations after a warning; and there is good cause for withdrawal. ¶7 When the superior court asked father for his position, father claimed he needed to be defended and wanted his counsel to represent him. The superior court