Thomas v. Thomas

── Thomas v. Thomas ── Case No.: 1 CA-CV 25-0495 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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 Matter of: EMILY E. THOMAS, Petitioner/Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER M. THOMAS, Respondent/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV 25-0495 FC FILED 03-24-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. FC2023-004698 The Honorable James N. Drake, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Berkshire Law Office, PLLC, Tempe By Keith Berkshire, Alexandra Sandlin, Alicia Derr, Elizabeth Nanez Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee Bishop, Del Vecchio & Beeks Law Office, P.C., Phoenix By Daniel P. Beeks Counsel for Respondent/Appellant  THOMAS v. THOMAS 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 Thomas ("Father") appeals the denial of his Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure ("Rule") 85 motion for relief from judgment, his amended Rule 85 motion for relief for judgment, and the Decree of Dissolution. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 Emily Thomas ("Mother") filed a petition to dissolve her marriage to Father. The parties entered into a series of Rule 69 agreements addressing various aspects of the dissolution proceedings. In the second Rule 69 agreement, the parties agreed that Father would receive the parties' marital residence as his separate property. In relevant part, the agreement provided the following: Father shall assume as his sole and separate property the following: 1. The former family residence is located in Tempe, Arizona . . . . The parties agree that they shall immediately pay off the remaining mortgage against the property, the HELOC debt, and the solar panels debt. Further, Father shall be entitled to occupy the home effective January 1st, 2025. The home shall be turned over to him in good condition, reasonable wear and tear excepted . . . . Finally, Father shall be responsible for any costs associated with addressing a zoning and/or compliance issue with respect to the enclosed garage/carport. The superior court adopted the second Rule 69 agreement on November 12, 2024. ¶3 Sometime after entering into the second Rule 69 agreement, Father discovered that the residence had zoning issues surrounding a patio in addition to the garage/carport zoning issues mentioned in the second Rule 69 agreement. On April 3, 2025, Father filed a motion to continue the 2  THOMAS v. THOMAS Decision of the Court case on the dismissal calendar, so that he could file a motion to set aside the second Rule 69 agreement. The superior court granted the motion to continue. ¶4 Father then filed a Rule 85 motion for relief from judgment, arguing the superior court should grant relief from judgment based on newly discovered evidence. Before Mother could respond, the superior court denied Father's Rule 85 motion in a two-sentence order. The superior court explained "this seems like a risk Father took on when agreeing to [the second Rule 69 agreement]." ¶5 Father filed an amended Rule 85 motion rearguing his newly- discovered-evidence claim and challenging the validity of the second Rule 69 agreement f