Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 11-15-2024
Case Style:
In re the Marriage of: Michelle Stewart Porter v. Corey Mitchell Mayberry
Case Number: S1400D0200900737
Judge: Elizabeth Johnson
Court: Superior Court, Yuma County, Arizona
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
Yuma, Arizona family law lawyers represented wife and husband in a marriage dissolution action.
¶2 Michelle Stewart Porter petitioned to dissolve her marriage to Mayberry in 2008. The court entered a consent dissolution decree on February 23, 2009. The decree provided Porter would receive 13% of Mayberry's military retired pay ("military payments"), including any future cost of living increases, calculated at $471.45 each month beginning on May 1, 2009. Mayberry was to pay Porter directly if she was unable to receive payments from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service. Mayberry retired from the military on July 31, 2010.
¶3 In January 2023, Porter petitioned to enforce the past-due military payments. She alleged Mayberry had not made a single payment and owed her $141,845.83 in missed payments calculated at 10% interest. Mayberry contested the petition, arguing, in part, that the five-year statute of limitations in effect in 2009, Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") Section 12-1551, barred Porter's claims for payments that became due "more than five years prior to" her enforcement petition. A.R.S. § 12-1551 (2003).
¶4 On June 5, 2023, the superior court determined that the applicable statute of limitations was amended during the period the military payments became due and therefore payments that accrued between May 1, 2009 and July 31, 2013, were time-barred but the payments due after August 1, 2013, remained collectable. The court ordered Porter to submit a new payment calculation and proposed form of judgment.
¶5 Porter submitted a revised calculation, which Mayberry objected to because it contained payments due before August 2013. Mayberry also objected to Porter applying a 10% interest rate to each payment, arguing that a statutory change required the court to calculate the interest rate at either 4.25% or 9.25% based on the prime rates in effect at the time each payment became due. Porter submitted a corrected calculation for $88,982.51, which still applied a 10% interest rate to each payment.
¶6 The court ordered Porter to submit a calculation using a 9.25% interest rate or alternatively to brief the court on the applicable rate. Porter argued the 10% rate applied because it was the statutory rate in 2009, when the consent decree was entered. Mayberry argued that either a 4.25% or 9.25% rate applied, based on the historical prime rate data from July/August 2013. See A.R.S. § 44-1201(B). He alternatively argued that the court should apply the current interest rate at the time the court enters judgment. On August 30, 2023, the court entered judgment for Porter against Mayberry in the amount of $88,982.51, for payments from August 1, 2013 through January 31, 2023, adopting Porter's corrected calculation, which included the 10% interest rate applied to all payments. Mayberry appealed.
In re Marriage of Porter, 1 CA-CV 23-0674 FC (Ariz. App. Nov 14, 2024)
Outcome: Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: