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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ISMAEL PALAFOX REYES, Petitioner/Appellee, 

v.

MARIA SOCORRO RABAGO ESPINOZA, Respondent/Appellant. 

No. 1 CA-CV 19-0786 FC

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. FN2016-094787 

The Honorable Suzanne Scheiner Marwil, Judge

VACATED AND REMANDED

COUNSEL

Ortega & Ortega, P.L.L.C., Phoenix

By Alane M. Ortega

Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee

Law Offices of Linda Aaron-Lory, P.C., Paradise Valley

By Linda Aaron-Lory

Counsel for Respondent/Appellant

FILED 9-7-2021
REYES v. ESPINOZA

Decision of the Court

2 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge D. Steven Williams delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined.

W I L L I A M S, Judge:

¶1 Maria Socorro Rabago Espinoza (“Wife”) appeals an award 

of attorneys’ fees forIsmael Palafox Reyes (“Husband”) following a petition 

to enforce their dissolution decree. Because we cannot discern from the 

record under what legal authority the court awarded fees, and 

consequently cannot evaluate whether the court properly considered any 

factors it was required to consider, we vacate the award and remand the 

matter to the superior court. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Husband and Wife married in 1987. In 2018, the two divorced 

by consent decree, which included an Arizona Rule of Family Law 

Procedure 69 settlement agreement. 

¶3 Per the agreement, the parties needed to liquidate certain 

community property for purposes of division. The community estate

included four vehicles, various pieces of furniture, a residence in Mesa, a 

rural Arizona property (the “Toltec property”), as well as two plots of land 

and a house in Sinaloa, Mexico. Wife held the majority of the community 

property. The decree stated “Wife has until August 9, 2018, to pay Husband 

his share [of the residence equity]. If payment is not made, the home will 

be immediately put up for sale.” Wife neither paid Husband nor put the 

home up for sale. 

¶4 A month after the consent decree, Husband petitioned the 

court to enforce the decree. Husband claimed he needed income due to his 

disability and medical issues. He requested attorneys’ fees pursuant to 

A.R.S. § 12-864 (contempt), A.R.S. § 25-324(A), and under the terms of the 

decree. 

¶5 Over the course of the next year, the parties came before the 

superior court three times. Each time the court set deadlines for compliance, 

but the parties made little progress. Frustrated by the acrimony between 
REYES v. ESPINOZA

Decision of the Court

3 

the parties and counsel, the court cautioned counsel not to run up attorneys’ 

fees that their clients could not afford. 

¶6 Wife sold the community furniture in August. In early 

December 2018, the court ordered Wife to turn over sales receipts and 

Husband’s share of the furniture proceeds by December 26, 2018. Wife did 

not comply until mid-January 2019. But Wife still had not sold the cars and

made no progress in selling the properties in Mexico. She indicated that her 

sister lived in the house in Mexico and the properties were titled in other 

people’s names. 

¶7 In or around the end of 2018, Wife obtained a loan against the 

Mesa residence. The court ordered Wife to pay off Husband’s equitable 

interest. As of the hearing in March 2019, Wife had not paid Husband for 

the residence, nor had she paid Husband for an earlier sale of the Toltec

property. The court learned Wife’s counsel had been holding Husband’s 

$86,000 equity payment in her trust account for nearly four months. The 

equity payment cleared the bank in late April 2019. 

¶8 In July 2019, the court ordered an evidentiary hearing to 

determine if Wife had sold the furniture at below market value or had 

otherwise committed waste of the community property. At an evidentiary 

hearing in August, the court required Wife to physically sign the proffered 

Toltec check. The court later found that “Wife delayed in doing things that 

were very clear that she needed to do under [] the decree,” and advised 

Husband he could file for an award of attorneys’ fees. Husband did so and 

supported his request with counsel’s affidavit and time records. Wife 

objected. 

¶9 The court entered a judgment for $20,563.87 – the full amount 

of attorneys’ fees and costs Husband requested. Wife timely appealed. We 

have jurisdiction under Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and 

A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1) and -2101(A)(1). 

DISCUSSION

¶10 On appeal, Wife makes various objections to the award, 

including that she acted in good faith and did not violate the decree. She 

argues Husband had an equal duty to liquidate the property and the 

superior court abused its discretion in granting him fees. 

¶11 We review an award of attorneys’ fees under A.R.S. § 25-324 

for an abuse of discretion, Magee v. Magee, 206 Ariz. 589, 590, ¶ 6 (App. 

2004), noting that an abuse of discretion occurs when there is an error of 
REYES v. ESPINOZA

Decision of the Court

4 

law or a complete lack of evidence to support the court’s findings. Duckstein 

v. Wolf, 230 Ariz. 227, 231, ¶ 8 (App. 2012). While the superior court is not 

obligated to make findings of fact absent a request, see Myrick v. Maloney, 

235 Ariz. 491, 495, ¶ 10 (App. 2014), it is required to examine both the 

financial resources and the reasonableness of the positions of each party. 

A.R.S. § 25-324(A). 

¶12 The superior court also retains the jurisdiction to enforce its 

own orders under its contempt power. See Jensen v. Beirne, 241 Ariz. 225, 

229, ¶ 14 (App. 2016); A.R.S. § 12-864; Ariz. R. Civ. P. 91.2(a), 92(a)(1). 

Generally, contempt orders are not appealable, but may be reviewed in 

appropriate circumstances by special action. Riley v. Superior Ct. In and For 

Cochise Cnty., 124 Ariz. 498, 499 (App. 1979). 

¶13 Here, it is unclear whether the court awarded attorneys’ fees 

under A.R.S. § 25-324, A.R.S. § 12-864 (the court’s contempt power), or some 

other basis. If A.R.S. § 25-324 were the basis for the award, the superior 

court was required to consider both the financial resources and 

reasonableness of each party’s position before awarding fees. Though the 

court noted that it was “very clear” that Wife was willfully unresponsive, 

which could be an indication that the court considered Wife’s actions to be 

unreasonable, there is no indication that the court considered the parties’ 

financial resources before making the award. 

¶14 It is also possible that the court awarded fees utilizing its 

contempt power. But because there is nothing in the court’s order, or in the 

record, which sheds any light on the basis for the court’s award of 

attorneys’ fees for Husband, we are unable to evaluate whether the court 

abused its discretion in making the award. Consequently, we vacate 

Husband’s award and remand the matter to allow the court to show its 

work. 

¶15 Both Husband and Wife request attorneys’ fees on appeal 

under A.R.S. § 25-324. We have considered the reasonableness of both 

parties’ positions and have determined that Wife has acted unreasonably 

on appeal. Her briefing was inflammatory and excessively long given the 

issue at hand. However, we do not have updated financial information for 

the parties. It is also unclear to us, whether Husband has returned to work 

or is disabled. For this reason, we decline to award either party fees on 

appeal. As the successful party on appeal, Wife is awarded her taxable costs 

upon compliance with Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 21. 
REYES v. ESPINOZA

Decision of the Court

5 

CONCLUSION

¶16 For the above-stated reasons, we vacate Husband’s award of 

attorneys’ fees and remand for the superior court to explain its basis for 

granting or denying Husband’s request.