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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE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 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS D IVISION O NE

I n re the Matter of:

I SMAEL PALAFOX REYES , Petitioner /Appell ee ,

v.

M ARIA SOCORRO RABAGO ESPINOZA , Respondent /Appel lant

.
No. 1 CA- CV 19 -0786 FC

A ppeal 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 /Appell ee

L aw Office s of Linda Aaron- Lory , P.C., Paradise Valley By Linda Aaron

- Lory C ounsel for Respondent/Appell ant FILED 9-7-2021REYES 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 M aria Socorro Rabago Espinoza (“ W ife”) appeals an award of attorneys’ fee s for Ismael Palafox Reyes (“Husband”) following a petition to enforce t heir d issolution 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 t he matter to the superior court

.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶2 Husband and Wife married in 1987

. In 2018, t he 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 f or purposes of division . T he community estate inclu ded four vehicles, various pieces of furniture, a residence in Mesa, a rural Arizona p roperty (the “Toltec property”) , a s well as two p lot s of land and a house in Sin a loa , 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 H usband 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 . F rustrated by the acrimony betweenREYES v. ESPINOZA Decision of the Court

3 the parties and couns el , 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 sale s receipts a nd 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 name s.
¶7 In or around the end of 2018, W ife obtained a loan against the Mesa residence . T he court ordered Wife to pay off Husband’s equitable interest . A s of the hearing in March 2019 , Wif e had not paid Husband for the residence , n or 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 . T he equity paymen t 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 . T he 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 fil e for an award of attorneys’ fee s. H usband 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 a n abuse of discretion occurs when there is an error ofREYES 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). W hile 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 financi al 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 c ourt awarded fees utilizing its contempt power. But b ecause 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 th e matter to allow the court to show its work.
¶15 Both H usband and W ife 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 h er 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.