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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

NAOMI M. SHARKEY, Petitioner/Appellant,

v.

NATHANIEL W. SHARKEY, Respondent/Appellee.

No. 1 CA-CV 15-0386 FC

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. FC 2014-095228

The Honorable Carolyn K. Passamonte, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Adam C. Rieth, PLLC, Gilbert

By Adam C. Rieth

Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant

The Harrian Law Firm, PLC, Glendale

By Daniel S. Riley

Counsel for Respondent/Appellee
SHARKEY v. SHARKEY

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Patricia A. Orozco delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen and Judge Kenton D. Jones joined.

O R O Z C O, Judge:

¶1 Naomi M. Sharkey (Mother) appeals portions of the family 

court’s decree dissolving her marriage to Nathaniel W. Sharkey (Father), 

including the denial of Mother’s request for spousal maintenance, the grant 

of partial transportation costs to Father, and the ruling declining to award 

Mother additional attorney fees beyond an interim amount previously 

awarded. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 The parties were married approximately fifteen years and 

have one minor child together. Mother resides in Arizona and Father 

resides in California. In September 2014, Mother filed a petition for 

dissolution of marriage in Arizona. At a temporary orders hearing in 

January 2015, the family court ordered Father to pay Mother $2,700 as an 

interim award of attorney fees. 

¶3 Before trial, the parties resolved most of their disputed issues 

relating to the dissolution of their marriage and set forth their agreements

in a stipulation pursuant to Rule 69, Arizona Rules of Family Law 

Procedure (ARFLP).

1 The family court adopted that stipulation, in which

the parties agreed that Mother’s income was $3,466 per month,

commencing February 1, 2015. In her affidavit of financial information 

(AFI) dated March 25, 2015, Mother stated that her monthly income was 

$3,464 per month and listed monthly expenses of $5,120 per month.

¶4 The family court held trial on March 30, 2015 on the remaining 

disputed items, including Mother’s request for spousal maintenance, 

Father’s request for shared transportation costs for their minor child to visit 

 

1 Under Rule 69, “an Agreement between the parties shall be valid and 

binding if (1) the agreement is in writing, or (2) the terms of the agreement 

are set forth on the record before a judge.” ARFLP 69.A.1-2.
SHARKEY v. SHARKEY

Decision of the Court

3

with Father in California several times a year, and Mother’s request for 

attorney fees. 

¶5 Although the parties’ Rule 69 stipulation listed that Mother’s 

gross monthly income was $3,466, Father testified that just a week before 

the hearing, Mother disclosed her recent earning statements showing that 

her average monthly gross income for the preceding three months was 

approximately $4,100. Father testified that with Mother’s increased income 

plus expected child support payments, Mother would not need spousal 

maintenance. Mother testified that her recent pay increase reflected 

overtime and bonuses that were not guaranteed. Father also challenged 

several expenses listed on Mother’s AFI. Specifically, Father challenged 

Mother’s rent amount for a three-bedroom apartment for only two people, 

her food allowance for two people, after-school transportation costs for a 

teenage son that could bike to his nearby school, clothing, and grooming 

expenses. 

¶6 The family court awarded Mother child support of $878 per 

month, denied Mother spousal maintenance, ordered Mother to pay 

transportation costs for two of the trips for their son’s visits with Father in 

California, and affirmed the interim award of attorney fees as a final award. 

Mother timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 

9, of the Arizona Constitution, and Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) 

sections 12-120.21.A.1 and -2101.A.1 (West 2016).

2

DISCUSSION

I. Spousal Maintenance

¶7 We review the family court’s denial of spousal maintenance 

for an abuse of discretion. Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, 193 Ariz. 343, 348, ¶ 14 

(App. 1998). We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

prevailing party, and will uphold the family court’s judgment if there is any 

reasonable supporting evidence. Thomas v. Thomas, 142 Ariz. 386, 390 (App. 

1984). We “infer from any judgment the findings necessary to sustain it if 

such additional findings do not conflict with express findings and are 

reasonably supported by the evidence.” Id. (quoting Wippman v. Rowe, 24 

Ariz. App. 522, 525 (1975)). 

 

2 We cite the current version of applicable statutes when no revisions 

material to this decision have since occurred. 
SHARKEY v. SHARKEY

Decision of the Court

4

¶8 Pursuant to A.R.S. § 25–319.A, the court may grant spousal 

support if it finds that the spouse seeking maintenance meets any one of 

these four threshold factors:

1. Lacks sufficient property, including property 

apportioned to the spouse, to provide for that spouse’s 

reasonable needs.

2. Is unable to be self-sufficient through appropriate 

employment or is the custodian of a child whose age or 

condition is such that the custodian should not be required to 

seek employment outside the home or lacks earning ability in 

the labor market adequate to be self-sufficient.

3. Contributed to the educational opportunities of the 

other spouse.

4. Had a marriage of long duration and is of an age that 

may preclude the possibility of gaining employment 

adequate to be self-sufficient.

3

¶9 In reviewing an award of spousal maintenance, we first 

consider whether the spouse meets one of the four requirements under 

A.R.S. § 25-319.A. Gutierrez, 193 Ariz. at 348, ¶ 15. If so, then we review 

the amount and duration of the award in consideration of the factors under 

A.R.S. § 25-319.B. Id.

¶10 Here, the family court found that Mother did not meet any of 

the four statutory criteria. The family court found that the parties had been 

married approximately fifteen years, during which time Mother, who is 

thirty eight years old:

was not consistently employed. Since the separation she has 

obtained permanent full time employment and earns $20.00 

per hour. The court finds that this income allows her to be 

self-sufficient through employment. She did not contribute to 

the educational opportunities of Father during the marriage. 

 

3 Only one of the four requirements must be met to permit an award 

of spousal maintenance. See Elliott v. Elliott, 165 Ariz. 128, 136 (App. 1990)

(noting that, after the court finds one requirement is met, additional 

requirements need not be analyzed because A.R.S. § 25-319.B governs the 

amount and duration of the award).
SHARKEY v. SHARKEY

Decision of the Court

5

¶11 Mother argues the family court abused its discretion by 

denying an award of spousal maintenance. Mother contends she is unable 

to be self-sufficient through self-employment and asserts the family court 

erred by failing to consider that her expenses, taxes, and other 

withholdings, exceeded her income. Mother also argues the family court 

failed to consider her “reasonable needs in light of the parties’ standard of 

living” during the marriage and that her AFI did not include items 

previously enjoyed during the marriage such as family gifts, recreation, 

entertainment, vacations, or emergencies. Further, Mother argues the 

family court failed to determine whether she lacked sufficient property, 

including property apportioned to her, to provide for her reasonable needs. 

Father argues that the family court acted within its discretion in finding 

Mother’s monthly income to be in the range of $3,464 and $4,100 for spousal 

support purposes, given Mother’s disclosures before the hearing of 

increased income and that, together with the child support award, Mother’s 

income exceeds her expenses. 

¶12 The family court found that Mother’s income allowed her to 

be self-sufficient through employment and that she earned $20 per hour. 

The record supports that determination. Although the parties agreed 

before the evidentiary hearing that Mother’s income was $3,466 per month, 

nothing prevented the family court from considering that, after the parties 

reached their agreement, Mother disclosed her recent paystubs reflecting 

an increased income of $4,100. Although Mother testified the increased 

income was due to overtime and bonuses that were not guaranteed, we do 

not reweigh conflicting evidence and defer to the family court’s assessment 

of witness credibility. See Hurd v. Hurd, 223 Ariz. 48, 52, ¶ 16 (App. 2009). 

¶13 Although the decree does not specifically mention Mother’s 

expenses, we presume that the family court considered her expenses as 

listed on her AFI and Father’s challenges thereto. See Fuentes v. Fuentes, 209 

Ariz. 51, 55–56, ¶ 18 (App. 2004) (noting that evidence admitted by the court 

is presumed to be considered). We find the family court did not abuse its 

discretion in considering Father’s challenges to Mother’s income and 

expenses and finding Mother was able to be self-sufficient through 

appropriate employment. 

¶14 Mother’s argument that the family court erred is premised on 

her assertion that she is both unable to be self-sufficient through 

appropriate employment and lacked sufficient property to “fill the gap 

between her expenses and her after tax income.” Although this issue was 

listed in the pretrial statement, Mother did not urge the family court to rule 

on this factor or argue the issue at trial. Accordingly, the issue is waived 
SHARKEY v. SHARKEY

Decision of the Court

6

and we do not address it. See State v. Gendron, 168 Ariz. 153, 154 (1991) 

(stating the general rule that failure to raise an issue at trial waives that issue 

on appeal). 

II. Allocation of Transportation Costs

¶15 Mother next challenges the family court’s allocation of 

transportation costs incurred when the child visits Father in California. 

Mother argues that Father agreed to pay all the transportation costs

between Arizona and California, and that she cannot afford the 

transportation costs. We review the allocation of travel expenses for abuse 

of discretion. Cook v. Losnegard, 228 Ariz. 202, 204, ¶ 9 (App. 2011). Where 

one-way travel exceeds 100 miles, such as here, Arizona’s Child Support 

Guidelines permit the family court to allocate travel expenses of the child 

associated with parenting time based on the “means of the parents” and 

may consider how the parents’ conduct “affected the costs of parenting 

time.” See A.R.S. § 25-320.18 (2011). 

¶16 We find no abuse of discretion in the family court ordering 

Mother to pay round trip transportation costs for two of the child’s visits 

with Father in California. The record supports that Mother has the means 

to pay such costs and she does not argue that Father’s conduct increased 

the costs of parenting time. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the 

allocation of transportation costs.

III. Attorney Fees

¶17 Finally, Mother challenges the family court’s ruling that the 

interim attorney fees award of $2,700 was “a satisfactory allocation of a 

portion of Mother’s reasonable attorney fees and costs, and declin[ing] to 

order an additional amount.” The family court has discretion to determine 

the amount of attorney fees to be awarded in a dissolution proceeding. 

Burkhardt v. Burkhardt, 109 Ariz. 419, 421 (1973). In determining a 

reasonable fee award, the family court may draw upon its own experience 

and knowledge of the case. Baum v. Baum, 120 Ariz. 140, 146 (App. 1978). 

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 25-324, a trial court in a dissolution action may order 

one party to pay the other’s attorney fees and costs after the trial court 

“consider[s] the financial resources of both parties and the reasonableness 

of the positions each party has taken throughout the proceedings.” A.R.S. 

§ 25–324.A, B. A court abuses its discretion when it commits an error of law 

in reaching its discretionary conclusion. In re Marriage of Williams, 219 Ariz. 

546, 548, ¶ 8 (App. 2008). 
SHARKEY v. SHARKEY

Decision of the Court

7

¶18 Mother argues that by not permitting her to file an application

for attorney fees, the family court was unaware of the amount of her fees. 

On her AFI dated March 25, 2015, Mother listed her attorney fees paid to 

date as $5,838. Mother argues that amount did not include “negotiation 

and preparation” of the Rule 69 stipulation, preparation of the pre-trial 

statement, and preparation and attendance at the one-day trial. The family 

court found that “Father makes approximately 70% of the parties’ current 

combined income[,]” and that the award to Mother of $2,700 in interim 

attorney fees was equivalent to almost half the total amount of fees listed in 

Mother’s AFI. Therefore, the family court declined to award an additional 

amount. On this record, we find no abuse of discretion and affirm the 

attorney fees award.

CONCLUSION

¶19 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm. In our discretion, we 

deny Mother’s request for attorney fees. We award Father his costs upon 

compliance with Rule 21, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure.