PHOENIX — An Arizona appeals panel has thrown out a legal malpractice lawsuit against a family law attorney who missed a mandatory deadline to correct a $100,000 debt error in a divorce judgment.
Division One of the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled that client Gordana Mikalacki failed to prove she suffered any actual financial damage from the clerical lapse. The decision backed a Maricopa County Superior Court summary judgment in favor of attorney Jennifer Mihalovich and her firm, Stewart Law Group. The ruling was decisive. Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins determined that while the filing deadline slipped past, the underlying financial obligations between the former spouses remained legally enforceable.
The dispute stems from a Maricopa County Superior Court decree finalized on March 9, 2021. During the divorce proceedings, the couple carried a shared $200,000 balance on a personal loan provided by Mikalacki's father. The trial judge mistakenly recorded that obligation as $100,000 in the final decree. Mihalovich failed to file a timely motion to alter or amend the judgment. Although the trial bench initially granted a late motion to fix the balance, the Arizona Court of Appeals overturned that fix in October 2022 in Matter of Mikalacki v. Rubezic, ruling the statutory clock had run out.
Locked out of the family court record, Mikalacki filed a malpractice claim under docket CV2023-018446. She argued that the omitted $100,000 would have been satisfied directly from the sale proceeds of the marital residence, leaving her exposed to out-of-pocket liabilities. Superior Court Judge Scott A. Blaney dismissed the suit, finding no demonstrated financial loss.
Under Arizona case law, hypothetical damages cannot sustain a legal malpractice claim. Precedents established in Phillips v. Clancy and Commercial Union Insurance Co. v. Lewis & Roca require plaintiffs to prove concrete, measurable harm caused directly by an attorney's negligence. Judge Perkins wrote that an inaccurate divorce decree cannot rewrite obligations owed to external lenders, nor does it extinguish contribution claims between former spouses.
"Mihalovich's untimely filing did not cause Mikalacki to owe the full debt as a matter of joint and several liability," Judge Perkins wrote in the unanimous memorandum decision, joined by Judges Brian Y. Furuya and D. Andrew Gaona. Citing Fleming v. Tanner, the panel noted that Mikalacki's father retains full rights to collect the debt regardless of the trial court's recording error.
| Case Parameter | Official Record |
|---|---|
| Case Citation | Mikalacki v. Mihalovich et al. (No. 1 CA-CV 26-0178) |
| Target Debt Owed | $200,000 Family Loan |
| Decree Record Error | $100,000 Balance Recorded |
| Lower Court Ruling | Summary Judgment for Defendants (Judge Scott A. Blaney) |
| Appellate Disposition | Affirmed in Full |
Because the original decree split community liabilities down the middle, Mikalacki retains the statutory right to file an independent claim against her former husband to recover his half of the remaining debt. State precedent under Dressler v. Morrison establishes that unallocated marital liabilities remain subject to equal division. Mikalacki must pursue those funds directly from her former spouse in civil court rather than seeking damages from her former defense counsel.