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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

CARMEN LOPEZ DE GALVAN, 

Petitioner/Appellee,

v.

MARTIN GALVAN DUARTE, 

Respondent/Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CV 19-0471 FC

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. FC2018-003163

The Honorable Bradley H. Astrowsky, Judge

AFFRIMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED

COUNSEL

Michael L. Gertell LLC, Phoenix

By Michael L. Gertell

Counsel for Respondent/Appellant

FILED 4-16-2020
GALVAN v. DUARTE

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Kenton D. Jones and Judge D. Steven Williams joined.

B R O W N, Judge:

¶1 Martin Galvan Duarte (“Husband”) appeals from the 

superior court’s decree of dissolution of his marriage to Carmen Lopez De 

Galvan (“Wife”). He challenges the court’s division of property and the 

child support award. For the reasons that follow, we vacate the child 

support award and remand for proceedings consistent with this decision. 

We otherwise affirm the decree.

BACKGROUND

¶2 Husband and Wife were married in June 1988. Wife filed a 

petition for dissolution in August 2018. The couple had one child who was 

still a minor. After an evidentiary hearing, the superior court entered a 

decree of dissolution and, as relevant here, ordered Husband to pay Wife 

$553 per month for child support and $600 per month for three years for 

spousal maintenance. The court awarded the couple’s marital residence in 

Tolleson to Husband and their house in Sonora, Mexico, to Wife. Husband 

timely appealed. 

DISCUSSION

¶3 Husband argues the superior court abused its discretion by 

awarding Husband only $18,000 for his community interest in the Sonora 

property and understating Wife’s income when calculating his child 

support obligation. Wife did not file an answering brief.1 

1 We could treat Wife’s failure to file an answering brief as a 

confession of reversible error; instead, we exercise our discretion to 

consider Husband’s arguments on the merits. See Lopez v. Barraza, 150 Ariz. 

291, 292 (App. 1986).
GALVAN v. DUARTE

Decision of the Court

3

A. Value of Sonora Property

¶4 Husband argues that the superior court incorrectly valued the 

Sonora property and thus erred by awarding him $18,000 for his 

community interest in the property. 

¶5 We review the superior court’s division of property for an 

abuse of discretion. Day v. Day, 20 Ariz. App. 472, 473 (1973). “The 

determination of issues of credibility and the resolution of conflicting 

evidence . . . are . . . functions of the trial court.” Lee v. Lee, 133 Ariz. 118, 

123 (App. 1982). We view the evidence most favorably to upholding the 

superior court’s judgment. Id.

¶6 Before trial, Husband and Wife agreed Wife would receive 

the Sonora property and pay Husband $18,000 for his community property 

interest. She did so. Husband then filed a pretrial statement asserting he 

obtained an appraisal indicating the property was worth more than the 

$36,000 Wife had told him it was worth. The appraisal report indicated the 

property was worth $1,475,000 pesos.2 

¶7 Husband and Wife were the only witnesses at trial. The 

superior court heard testimony from Husband that based on the appraisal 

report, he believed the Sonora property was worth more than twice as much 

as he had thought when he agreed to accept $18,000 from Wife for his 

interest in the property. Wife testified she had believed her half of the 

property was worth $15,000 “without an appraisal or anything,” and she 

initially planned to “sell” her interest in the property to Husband for 

$15,000 but later decided she wanted to keep the property. According to 

Wife, Husband told her he wanted $20,000 for his interest in the property 

but they settled on $18,000 and finalized the “documents” and 

“paperwork” at a bank. Addressing Husband’s appraisal, Wife testified

that “in Mexico, you can buy a lot of things. You can buy an appraiser to 

have them say that a property is worth more.” 

¶8 The superior court awarded the Sonora property to Wife, 

finding that Husband’s community interest in the property was $18,000. 

The court explained that Wife “already paid [Husband] $18,000 for his 

interest in [the Sonora] property per the agreement of the parties. No 

credible evidence was presented to demonstrate that this property is worth 

more than previously agreed upon by the parties.” On appeal, Husband 

2 In his opening brief Husband asserts that the property was worth 

$77,082.71 in U.S. dollars. He testified, however, that it was worth $82,000. 
GALVAN v. DUARTE

Decision of the Court

4

argues the court ignored the appraisal report and failed to recognize that 

Wife did not present any evidence of the value of the Sonora property or 

dispute the value set forth in the appraisal.

¶9 Wife testified she believed half of the property was worth 

$15,000 but she agreed to pay Husband $18,000 after he requested $20,000. 

Wife’s testimony demonstrated that she did not agree with the appraisal. 

The superior court did not accept Husband’s valuation as credible and was 

free to reject it. Accordingly, we affirm the court’s order finding that 

Husband’s interest in the Sonora property was $18,000.

B. Determination of Wife’s Income

¶10 “We review child support awards for abuse of discretion,” 

and “accept the court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous but review 

de novo the court’s conclusions of law and interpretation of the Arizona 

Child Support Guidelines . . . .” Sherman v. Sherman, 241 Ariz. 110, 112–13, 

¶ 9 (App. 2016). 

¶11 Husband argues the superior court erred when it determined

Wife’s gross monthly income for awarding child support because the court 

did not include Wife’s rental income or the $600 per month in spousal 

maintenance the court ordered Husband to pay Wife.

3 

¶12 Wife, who was age 52 at the time of the decree, testified she 

was capable of working and earning minimum wage. She also explained

that she receives $200 per month in rental income from the Sonora house. 

According to Husband, the rental income was $250 per month, but neither 

party submitted supporting documentation. 

¶13 For purposes of determining child support, gross income 

includes income from any source, including spousal maintenance and 

rental income. A.R.S. § 25-320 app. § (5)(A), (C). The superior court 

imputed to Wife $1906.67 in gross monthly income (minimum wage at 40 

hours per week). The court subtracted $600 per month from Husband’s 

3 We reject Husband’s conclusory assertion that had the superior court 

considered Wife’s rental earnings “it could likely have changed the amount 

that Husband was ordered to pay for spousal maintenance.” The court 

referenced the Sonora property in its spousal maintenance findings and 

heard evidence of the property’s rental income. Husband has not identified 

anything in this record suggesting the court failed to consider that income 

as part of its spousal maintenance award. Thus, we will not presume the 

court ignored it. 
GALVAN v. DUARTE

Decision of the Court

5

income for spousal maintenance paid but did not add $600 to Wife’s income 

for spousal maintenance received. Thus, the court erred by not including 

the spousal maintenance in Wife’s income. Additionally, although the 

parties disagreed on the amount Wife received in rental income from the 

Sonora property ($200 vs. $250), it was undisputed that she received rental 

income. Nor does the record include any evidence of rental expenses. The 

court erred by not including Wife’s rental income when calculating child 

support. On remand, the court must account for these discrepancies and 

re-calculate Husband’s child support obligation.

CONCLUSION

¶14 We vacate the child support award and remand for further 

proceedings consistent with this decision. The remainder of the decree is 

affirmed. We deny Husband’s request for an award of attorneys’ fees 

because he cites only to ARCAP 21, which does not provide a substantive 

basis for a fee award. See ARCAP 21(a)(2) (an appellate court may decline 

to award fees when a party fails to state pertinent authority). Because both 

parties have partially prevailed on appeal, we decline to award costs to 

Husband. See Valento v. Valento, 225 Ariz. 477, 484, ¶ 25 (App. 2010).