Kacir v. Kacir

── Kacir v. Kacir ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: June 08, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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: JOHN KACIR, Petitioner/Appellant, v. ALICIA KACIR, Respondent/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV 25-0470 FC FILED 06-08-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Navajo County No. S0900DO202100364 The Honorable Michala M. Ruechel, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL The Zickerman Law Office, PLLC, Flagstaff By Adam Zickerman Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant Pangerl Law Firm, PLLC, Phoenix By Regina M. Pangerl Counsel for Respondent/Appellee  KACIR v. KACIR Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Anni Hill Foster delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge David B. Gass and Judge D. Andrew Gaona joined. F O S T E R, Judge: ¶1 Petitioner John Kacir appeals the superior court’s modification of spousal maintenance and award of attorneys’ fees to Respondent Alicia Kacir. For the reasons below, this Court affirms. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 John and Alicia1 dissolved their marriage through a consent decree in 2022, following John’s petition for dissolution in 2021. The decree ordered John to pay $600 in monthly spousal maintenance to Alicia until she remarries. ¶3 Two years later, John petitioned to modify the spousal maintenance order. He alleged a change in circumstances justified decreasing the monthly spousal maintenance from $600 to $200. The changed circumstances involved financial hardship based on taxes owed to the Internal Revenue Service, diminished ability to work and increased business expenses. ¶4 After oral argument on the petition, the court determined a substantial and continuing change in circumstance existed and reduced John’s spousal maintenance to $540. The court also ordered John to pay a portion of Alicia’s attorneys’ fees and costs and ordered Alicia to file a sworn statement supporting her fees and costs. The court entered its ruling under Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure (“Rule”) 78(b), noting that it “still must decide the amount of attorney fees and costs to be awarded” and it “expressly determines that no just reason for delay exists and directs the entry of this minute entry as a final, appealable order.” See Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 78(b). Within the same week of the court’s judgment, John timely appealed. 1 For clarity and convenience, this Court respectfully refers to the parties by their first names. 2  KACIR v. KACIR Decision of the Court ¶5 After John filed his Notice of Appeal, Alicia then filed her sworn statement and the parties exchanged briefs on fees and costs. The court considered the briefs and granted Alicia a portion of her attorneys’ fees and costs. But the court’s judgment did not include final judgment language provided in Rule 78(b) or (c). This Court stayed the appeal, revested jurisdiction in the superior court to enter judgment with Rule 78(c) language and ordered John to file an amended notice of appeal. This Court noted that it “will dismiss the appeal as to the attorney fees issue” if an amended notice of appeal is not timely filed. The superior court amended the judgment, but John failed to file an amended notice of appeal. Because John did not timely appeal from the Rule 78(c) judgment for attorneys’ fees,