Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorneyhearingtrialtestimonydivorcechild custody
trialtestimonydivorcechild custody

Related Cases

In re Estate of Adams, 257 Mich.App. 230, 667 N.W.2d 904
View Case »
Fisher v. Estate of Haley, 695 N.E.2d 1022
View Case »
Jerman v. Jerman, 129 Or. 402, 275 P. 915
View Case »
Tilghman v. Bounds, 214 Md. 533, 136 A.2d 226
View Case »
Swanson v. Parkway Estates Townhouse Ass’n, 567 N.W.2d 767
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

In re Marriage of Mortensen, Not Reported in P.3d, 2014 WL 3622197

Facts

Afton Van Mortensen and Lesa Michelle Mortensen were divorced in Kansas in 2003. In 2006, Lesa registered the child support order in Arizona. In August 2013, Lesa filed a petition to modify child custody and requested reimbursement for past due medical bills for their children, T.M. and M.M. Van contested the reimbursement, claiming the bills were incurred more than 180 days prior to the filing and sought attorney fees. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court awarded Lesa $6,143.46 for Van's share of the medical expenses.

Van and Lesa were divorced in Kansas in 2003. In 2006, Lesa registered the child support order in Graham County Superior Court, where she resides with T.M. and M.M. Both Van and Lesa agree that venue in Arizona was appropriate. In August 2013, Lesa filed a Petition to Modify Child Custody, Parenting Time, and Child Support as to M.M. only. In the petition, Lesa requested payment for “all past due medical bills [she had] received no payment for.” Van responded that no remedy was available for the vast majority of the bills because they were incurred more than 180 days prior to filing.

Issue

Did the trial court err in awarding Lesa reimbursement for Van's share of medical expenses, considering the timeliness of the bills and the sufficiency of evidence?

Did the trial court err in awarding Lesa reimbursement for Van's share of medical expenses, considering the timeliness of the bills and the sufficiency of evidence?

Rule

According to Arizona Child Support Guidelines, any request for payment or reimbursement of uninsured medical costs must be provided to the other parent within 180 days after the date the services occur, unless good cause is shown.

Section 9(A) of the Arizona Child Support Guidelines states in pertinent part, “Except for good cause shown, any request for payment or reimbursement of uninsured medical, dental and/or vision costs must be provided to the other parent within 180 days after the date the services occur.”

Analysis

The court found no abuse of discretion in awarding Lesa reimbursement for Van's share of the uninsured medical expenses. Lesa's testimony was deemed credible, and she provided an itemization of the expenses. Van did not challenge the existence or amount of the bills, and the court accepted Lesa's testimony as sufficient evidence of timely notice to Van regarding the uncovered medical expenses.

We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision to award Lesa reimbursement for Van's share of the uninsured medical expenses. In addition to her testimony, Lesa attached to her petition an itemization of the uninsured medical expenses. Van did not challenge the existence of the bills, the amount of the bills, or that Lesa had paid them. The court's statement that it accepted Lesa's testimony as “credible and sufficient evidence of timely notice to the father of the uncovered medical expenses for which she seeks reimbursement” suggests that the court accepted her testimony that the bills existed in the stated amounts and that Lesa had paid them.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that Lesa's claims for reimbursement were timely and supported by credible evidence.

For the above reasons, the trial court's order is affirmed.

Who won?

Lesa Michelle Mortensen prevailed in the case because the court found her testimony credible and sufficient to support the reimbursement for medical expenses.

Lesa did not file an answering brief. Although the failure to file an answering brief may constitute a confession of error, we exercise our discretion to address the merits of Van's arguments.

You must be