Professional Documents
Culture Documents
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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
v.
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
MEMORANDUM DECISION
P O R T L E Y, Judge:
BACKGROUND
2 Absent material revision after the relevant date, we cite the current version
2
TAUSCHER v. HANSHEW
Decision of the Court
DISCUSSION
3
TAUSCHER v. HANSHEW
Decision of the Court
4
TAUSCHER v. HANSHEW
Decision of the Court
5
TAUSCHER v. HANSHEW
Decision of the Court
4 For the first time in her reply brief, Mother contends the handwritten
agreement did not meet the requirements of Rule 69 and is not enforceable
because it was not signed. Issues raised for the first time in reply on appeal
will not be considered. See Dawson v. Withycombe, 216 Ariz. 84, 111, 91
(App. 2007).
6
TAUSCHER v. HANSHEW
Decision of the Court
entered into and placed into the record, and Father had provided her with
his initial proposed consent decree.
5Mother argues she did not waive this argument because it was raised in
her objections with the family court and addressed at the status conference.
The issue was raised, but then Mothers attorney agreed to pay half the
HELOC debt at the status conference.
7
TAUSCHER v. HANSHEW
Decision of the Court
Mother argues the parties did not accept Dr. Morans report without
qualification; thus, the language should be deleted from the Final Decree.
8
TAUSCHER v. HANSHEW
Decision of the Court
CONCLUSION