Owens v. Echard Update – Has Clayton Already Won?

Earlier this week, on May 22nd, an order was issued by Judge Mata that resolved numerous pending motions/issues. For the most part, the order pretty much kept with the same pattern we’ve seen in the case — the judge basically ruled in Clayton’s favor on everything.

One thing that was especially notable (at least to me) is the Court denied my request for a pre-trial hearing (which is known in the rules as a “scheduling conference”). This is notable because the rules do NOT allow the court to deny that type of request; the rules say if a party asks for this type of hearing, the judge MUST set one:

(a) Scheduling Conference. The court may on its own, and on request of a party must, hold a scheduling conference to formulate a plan for trial, including procedures for facilitating the admission of evidence and the filing of a pretrial statements. At least one of the attorneys who will conduct the trial for each party, and any self-represented parties, must attend this conference.

Rule 76.1(a), Arizona Rules of Family Law Procedure

Alright, so the rules say the judge MUST provide a hearing; I asked for a hearing, and the judge denied that request. Hmmm.

Clayton’s fans seem to think this is a GOOD sign for him. In fairness, if I was not a lawyer and if I had nothing better to do with my time than obsess over a Realtor™/former reality TV “celeb” and his quest for justice, then I guess I’d probably feel the same way.

But here’s the thing — this isn’t my first rodeo. I’ve had cases that followed nearly an identical pattern; i.e., the judge rules over and over and over in favor of the other side. And guess what? That does NOT mean the other side is guaranteed a win. Sorry guys, it just doesn’t. I can give you other examples, but this post is already going to be too long, so let’s just stick to LO v. CE for now.

My view is that Clayton has NOT won yet, and the judge’s recent ruling doesn’t change that view. Here’s why.

First, have you ever heard phrases like: “This is a court of law” or “We need to follow the rule of law“? We’ve all heard those terms, but unless you are a litigator, the exact meaning and importance of the terms may not be apparent.

I’m not going to turn this into a 100 page dissertation on the topic, so I’ll just give a basic summary. In the US legal system, most courts are “courts of law”. That means the judge is required to follow “the law” (duh), and used this way, “the law” means legal rules that are established by the legislative branch of government (which means Congress in federal cases, and state legislatures in state cases). Legal rules are usually found in state laws known as “statutes” or codes (in Arizona, we have the A.R.S. or Arizona Revised Statutes). Rules of court procedure also have the force of law, and there are also tons of other sources of law such as the Arizona Administrative Code, and various other state, county, and even city/local municipal rules and regulations. This is what we spend years learning as lawyers, and believe me — you could live 500 years and you’d never have enough time to master every area of law.

Taken together, these rules establish the body of “law” that governs our rights, duties, and remedies which can be enforced in a court of law. And FYI – the important thing to understand about courts of law is that judges are required to follow the law to-the-letter. Judges are not allowed to simply ignore laws they don’t like or don’t agree with. That’s the whole idea behind following the “rule of law”. This means laws are applied as-written, regardless of whether we agree with the law, and no matter how harsh the results may appear to be.

One clear example I like to use are the legal rules that limit your time to bring claims in court (often called “statute of limitations” or, very aptly, “SOL”). In many cases, these SOL time limits are SHORT — i.e., one year from the date a person is injured. If you are badly hurt by another person, and you sue them ONE DAY after the SOL’s expiration, the case WILL be thrown out and you will receive nothing. That will happen no matter how guilty the defendant is, and no matter how unfair the result may seem. That’s how the rule of law works.

But not all courts are courts of law. There is also a relatively ancient concept called a “court of equity“. Per Wikipedia (which is actually not a bad source for this):

Equity as a body of law

Equity is currently recognized as a distinct body of law, administered by various modern courts. The evolution of procedures within courts of equity has guided the application of equitable principles. Originating from the diverse rules of the early Courts of Chancery, today’s courts can exercise equitable jurisdiction while maintaining their inherent discretionary abilities to address new forms of injustice. Equity is not an independent body of law; rather, it is synonymous with corrective justice and complements common law to counterbalance its inflexible rules.

In this context, “equity” means “fairness”, and when you are dealing with a court of equity, the key thing to understand is that a judge has much more freedom and flexibility to do whatever they think is right, even if it’s not exactly within the bounds of the law. Case filed one day beyond the SOL? Nah, no biggie bro! We’ll just ignore that rule to help you out! EQUITY! WOOT WOOT!

OK, so why does this matter? Well, it matters because Owens v. Echard is technically proceeding in family court, not a normal civil court. And you know what’s coming next: Arizona’s family law courts are, for the most part, courts of equity, not law. See Atkinson v. Atkinson, 405 P.2d 919, 921 (Ariz.App. 1965) (explaining, “Divorce proceedings are conducted under the rules of the equity court since such are considered equity actions.”)

In most family law cases, applying rules of equity (rather than law) makes perfect sense. Divorce in a no-fault state like Arizona is a pretty mechanical process, but when you are dealing with things like child custody and spousal support, strict legal rules don’t always make sense. Fairness and flexibility become more important.

When a family court is asked to decide disputes over child custody, the court applies very flexible and fairness-based rules such as “what is in the best interests of the child?” That’s a highly subjective conclusion that doesn’t lend itself to black-or-white legal rules. Because child custody issues are so fact-specific and unique, a family court judge needs to have broad flexibility to consider ALL the relevant information to decide what’s best for each family.

So what does any of this have to do with Judge Mata’s rulings this week?

Well, this is just my personal opinion, but reading between the lines, I think the judge is taking a very “court of equity” type approach here. This means the judge probably wants to hear ALL information that bears on the issues, without excluding things for technical reasons….because that’s how most family court cases should be decided.

I can’t blame a family judge for, ya know, acting like a family judge. But for the same reasons, I also wouldn’t read too much into how this judge is handling the case. I’ve seen family court judges make decisions that are 100% different from what you initially thought they were going to do….because that’s what equity sometimes requires. Also, keep in mind — I have no choice but to raise certain arguments in this case, even if the judge doesn’t want to hear them. I have to do this because I can’t raise new arguments for the first time on appeal….so that means in order to protect Laura’s rights, I have to raise certain arguments NOW, just in case I need to use them later.

Having said all this, the biggest problem for Clayton is that this really isn’t a family law case. There is no baby, and there are no paternity issues left. It’s more accurate to say Clayton is litigating this like a civil defamation or abuse of process case (both of which are NOT matters of equity and are subject to all the strict rules that govern claims of law). That’s a BIG problem from Clayton, and I don’t think he sees it (in fairness, I’ve never even talked to the guy, so when I say ‘Clayton’, I really mean his legal team).

This is where I think Clayton is skating on very thin ice. His view seems to be that compliance with rules and procedures is optional (which the record clearly demonstrates). To me, it looks like Clayton doesn’t give a damn about following any rules and he doesn’t care what the law says…he just wants JUSTICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If this was ONLY about matters of equity, maybe that approach would be OK. But the loosey-goosey concepts of equity don’t apply to legal claims such as a statutory request for sanctions. If Clayton wants the judge to toss every rule of law out the window just so he can crush Laura and claim his justice, I think he’s going to end up very disappointed.

In other words, if the judge rules in favor of Clayton and awards sanctions against Laura WITHOUT following the legal requirements (which DO still apply), this outcome will be appealed, and I’d say the odds of a quick and complete reversal are about 99%.

Because of this reality, I personally believe Judge Mata has NOT made up her mind in favor of Clayton. That’s a vlogger’s IANAL (I am not a lawyer) hot-take, but it’s not mine, and IAAL.

I think the judge is just following the “family court” playbook (she’s a family court judge, so that’s to be expected). When we finally have our day in court, I still think the judge is going to do the right thing — after hearing all the evidence, she will conclude Laura did nothing to warrant sanctions, and even if Clayton makes some sort of last-minute “renewed” argument in favor of sanctions (since he’s withdrawn the only motion for sanctions he ever filed), he still can’t recover sanctions because he didn’t follow the mandatory procedure for obtaining them. That’s it. Case over, Laura wins.

One final important thing — if Clayton wins at trial but then Laura wins on appeal, this will result in Judge Mata being removed from the case and the matter will be assigned to a new judge for all further proceedings. See Rule 6(f), Rules of Family Law Procedure.

See ya’ll on the 10th.