Bischof v. Pellascio

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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:

JONATHON DREW BISCHOF, Petitioner/Appellant,

v.

JESSICA MARIE PELLASCIO, Respondent/Appellee.

No. 1 CA-CV 25-0198 FC
FILED 05-06-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. FC2023-050407
The Honorable Cassie Bray Woo, Judge

DISMISSED

COUNSEL

Becker Zarling & Smith Law, Avondale
By Gina M. Becker-Zarling, Sara Smith
Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant

The Law Office of Robert Casey, Phoenix
By Robert Ian Casey
Counsel for Respondent/Appellee
BISCHOF v. PELLASCIO
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge D. Andrew Gaona delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge David B. Gass and Judge Anni Hill Foster joined.

G A O N A, Judge:

¶1 Jonathon Bischof (“Father”) appeals from the superior court’s
January 2025 order (“January Order”) that resolved (1) Jessica Pellascio’s
(“Mother”) petition to enforce the parties’ 2018 dissolution decree and (2)
his petition to terminate or modify child support under that decree. Father’s
opening brief, however, only raises issues arising out of a later superior
court order from which he didn’t appeal. As a result, we dismiss.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In December 2018, Father and Mother divorced in Guam
under a dissolution decree resolving custody, property division, and
spousal and child support. Several years later, Mother registered the decree
in Arizona. Mother then petitioned to enforce the decree because of Father’s
alleged failure to pay child and spousal support. She also requested that
Father be held in contempt. Father filed his own petition to terminate or
modify spousal support.

¶3 After an evidentiary hearing, the superior court entered the
January Order. That order: (1) entered judgment against Father for
$423,281.23 in spousal support and property settlement arrears; (2) denied
Mother’s request that the superior court hold Father in contempt; (3) denied
Father’s petition to terminate or modify spousal support; (4) declined to
issue “any ruling on enforcement of child support” because that issue
wasn’t “pending”; (5) denied both parties’ fee requests; and (6) certified the
order as a final judgment under Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure
78(c).

¶4 Both Father and Mother timely appealed. After appealing,
Mother also moved for reconsideration of the January Order under Rule
35.1. The superior court dismissed her motion for lack of jurisdiction. We
then stayed the appeal and revested jurisdiction in the superior court to
allow it to consider a motion for reconsideration. Mother re-filed her motion

2
BISCHOF v. PELLASCIO
Decision of the Court

and Father responded. After considering the briefing, the superior court
granted in part and denied in part Mother’s motion (“April Order”).

¶5 In the April Order, the superior court explained it
“erroneously neglected to address child support arrears” in the January
Order and entered judgment against Father for $32,480. The superior court
also held Father in contempt for failing to pay child support, reaffirmed an
order entered a year before awarding Mother $25,000 in advance attorneys’
fees, and certified the order as a final judgment.

¶6 Mother then dismissed her appeal. Father didn’t appeal the
April Order.

DISCUSSION

¶7 Our consideration of Father’s appeal begins and ends with
our independent duty “to examine whether jurisdiction exists.” Matter of
Hernandez v. Athey, 256 Ariz. 530, 532 ¶ 3 (App. 2023) (citations omitted).
We “only acquire[] jurisdiction over those matters identified in a timely
filed notice of appeal.” In re Marriage of Thorn, 235 Ariz. 216, 218 ¶ 5 (App.
2014). And a notice of appeal must “designate the judgment or portion of
the judgment from which the party is appealing.” Ariz. R. Civ. App. P.
(“ARCAP”) 8(c).

¶8 The problem here is straightforward: Father’s notice of appeal
designates only the January Order as the judgment from which he appeals,
yet Father makes no arguments challenging the January Order. Instead, his
opening brief challenges the April Order from which he didn’t appeal. If
Father wanted us to review the April Order, he needed to file a timely notice
of appeal from that ruling. See ARCAP 9(a). He didn’t. The April Order is
thus not properly before us. See In re Marriage of Thorn, 235 Ariz. at 218 ¶ 5.

3
BISCHOF v. PELLASCIO
Decision of the Court

CONCLUSION

¶9 Because we lack jurisdiction to review the April Order, we
dismiss. Father and Mother both seek attorneys’ fees and costs under
A.R.S. § 25-324. We deny both fee requests in the exercise of our discretion.
We award Mother her costs subject to her compliance with ARCAP 21(b).

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

4