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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

GRACE ALEXANDER, Petitioner/Appellant,

v.

DAVID STADSKLEV, Respondent/Appellee.

No. 1 CA-CV 22-0299 FC

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. FN2020-095027

The Honorable Marvin L. Davis, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Paul D. Nordini, Esq., Scottsdale

By Paul D. Nordini

Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant

David Stadsklev, Cave Creek

Respondent/Appellee

FILED 4-27-2023
ALEXANDER v. STADSKLEV

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Angela K. Paton delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge D. Steven Williams joined.

P A T O N, Judge:

¶1 Grace Alexander (“Wife”) appeals the decree of dissolution of 

her marriage with David Stadsklev (“Husband”). We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Husband and Wife married in May 2009, and Wife filed the 

petition for dissolution in April 2020. At some point, Husband created a 

business (“Compassion Connection”), though it is not clear from the record 

whether he did so before or after the parties married. After marriage, the 

parties purchased stock in a company called Ark Sciences through 

Compassion Connection. The parties, at various times during their

marriage, assisted Husband’s sister (“Sister”) with renovating or restoring 

houses, which were owned by limited liability companies (“House 

Entities”). 

¶3 After a temporary orders hearing, Wife’s counsel stopped 

responding to Wife’s inquiries or otherwise participating in the matter. 

Wife then obtained new counsel who appeared in a limited scope to review 

the case file and reappeared in a limited scope to request a continuance 

given prior counsel’s absence. The court granted the motion, and Wife’s 

new counsel entered a full appearance in January 2021. 

¶4 In April 2021, Wife moved to designate the petition as 

complex, continue the trial, and add Sister as a third-party defendant to the 

case. Wife argued that an unknown community interest existed in the 

House Entities, and that Sister may also be liable for a community lien on 

the House Entities. The court again continued the trial but denied Wife’s 

two other motions. Wife requested another continuance to conduct 

discovery in November 2021, which the court granted.

¶5 That same month, Wife moved to compel disclosure of 

information she believed that Husband possessed related to the House 

Entities. Husband responded, arguing that the information either did not 

exist or belonged to Sister. He claimed he was not compensated for any
ALEXANDER v. STADSKLEV

Decision of the Court

3

work he may have done with Sister on home projects and that there was no 

business associated with the House Entities. 

¶6 The court did not expressly rule on the motion to compel but 

implicitly denied relief by ordering Wife to file a pretrial statement and

affirming a trial date in one week. The court also cautioned Husband’s 

counsel that, “if during the trial, it becomes obvious that these documents 

are out there . . . [the court will] vacate the trial midway through” and 

award attorneys’ fees to Wife for any delay.

¶7 Separately, Wife argued in her pretrial statement that

Compassion Connection, which she alleged was owned by the community,

ought to be dissolved and the sole asset of value within it—Ark Sciences

stock—be awarded to her. She argued that the stock had “unknown” but 

“significant” or “potential value.” Husband asked the court to award 

Compassion Connection to him because he claimed the business was 

established before the marriage began, and in any event it had no value in 

that the business and the stock were both worthless.

¶8 Wife proposed to call an expert to testify at trial as to what 

documents Husband ought to have in his possession as a corporate officer.

In response and to clarify its earlier ruling, however, the court noted “[i]t 

was never [the court’s] intention to allow the trial to be used as a forum of 

discovery” and said the expert would need to testify on some aspect 

relevant to trial, such as the value of the community’s interest in the LLCs 

at issue. The court cautioned that “[Wife’s] expert can’t take the stand and 

testify that [Husband] has these documents if he doesn’t know for a fact 

that he has these documents.”

¶9 Wife, her expert, and Husband testified at trial. Neither party

presented any testimony or exhibits concerning the value of the 

Compassion Connection entity or Ark Sciences stock. 

¶10 After trial, the superior court found that the parties did not 

own any real property subject to division and that “[t]he parties have no 

interest or lien in any real property.” The superior court awarded 

Compassion Connection to Husband.

¶11 Wife filed a motion to vacate the decree and compel 

additional discovery that the court considered under Arizona Rule of 

Family Law Procedure 83 and denied. We have jurisdiction over Wife’s 

timely appeal pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) Section

12-2101(A)(1).
ALEXANDER v. STADSKLEV

Decision of the Court

4

DISCUSSION

¶12 Husband did not file an answering brief, and while we may 

consider such failure to be a confession of error, we decline to do so, and 

instead address Wife’s claims on their merits. See Thompson v. Thompson, 

217 Ariz. 524, 526, ¶ 6, n.1 (App. 2008).

¶13 Wife first contends that the marital community had an 

interest in the limited liability companies used for various home 

renovations over the years, and that the superior court abused its discretion 

by failing to order additional disclosures. But Wife did not bring a special 

action petition challenging the court’s denial of her motion to compel 

disclosure. We therefore lack jurisdiction to consider Wife’s argument

because denials of motions to compel discovery or designate a case as 

complex are non-appealable pretrial discovery orders. See Hine v. Super. 

Ct., 18 Ariz.App. 568, 569 (1972) (taking special action jurisdiction over a 

pretrial discovery order because it is unappealable).

¶14 Wife next argues that the superior court erred in its division 

of property by awarding the Ark Sciences stock to Husband through the 

Compassion Connection entity without evidence of the stock’s value. We 

review the superior court’s division of property in a dissolution decree for 

an abuse of discretion. Helland v. Helland, 236 Ariz. 197, 199, ¶ 8 (App. 2014). 

We view the record in the light most favorable to sustaining the superior 

court and will affirm if the court’s order is reasonably supported by the 

evidence. Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, 193 Ariz. 343, 346, ¶ 5 (App. 1998). The 

value of an asset “is a factual determination that must be based on the facts 

and circumstances of each case.” Walsh v. Walsh, 230 Ariz. 486, 490, ¶ 9 

(App. 2012) (citation omitted). 

¶15 Neither party testified at trial as to the value of the Ark 

Sciences stock held by Compassion Connection. Wife admits that both 

parties presented “competing positions” in their respective pretrial 

statements as to whether the stock had any value, but Wife offered no 

affirmative evidence of a value greater than zero. 

¶16 The superior court must divide community property 

equitably. A.R.S. § 25-318(A). But the party disputing a valuation has the 

burden to point to evidence that the court abused its discretion. See In re 

Est. of Long, 229 Ariz. 458, 464, ¶ 22 (App. 2012) (holding that burden is on 

party seeking to overturn a ruling to show an abuse of discretion). Here, 

Wife presented no evidence contradicting the court’s implicit zero-dollar 
ALEXANDER v. STADSKLEV

Decision of the Court

5

valuation of Compassion Connection and the Ark Sciences stock it holds in 

the decree, so we cannot find an abuse of discretion.

CONCLUSION

¶17 We affirm.