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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

PAT VARGAS, Petitioner/Appellant,

v.

ANNA LISSA VARGAS, Respondent/Appellee.

No. 1 CA-CV 23-0741 FC

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. FN2022-002605

The Honorable Max Covil, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Michael L. Gertell, LLC, Phoenix

Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant

Anna Lissa Vargas, Phoenix

Respondent/Appellee

FILED 06-13-2024
VARGAS v. VARGAS

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Andrew M. Jacobs and Judge David D. Weinzweig joined.

P E R K I N S, Judge:

¶1 Pat Vargas (“Husband”) appeals from the superior court’s 

decree of dissolution of marriage. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Husband married Anna Vargas (“Wife”) in 2006. Husband 

and Wife do not have children together, but Husband has children from a 

prior relationship. After the couple wed, Wife stopped pursuing an 

education and began working as a medical assistant. She stayed home every 

other weekend to watch Husband’s children while he worked. Husband 

and Wife owned a home in Phoenix, two cars, a travel trailer, and personal 

property in the home valued at $10,000. In June 2022, Husband filed for 

divorce.

¶3 At an evidentiary hearing, Husband maintained that he 

makes only $60,000 per year. Wife testified that Husband makes $80,000 per 

year and that his financial affidavit and partial tax returns did not reflect 

his full income. Wife also testified that she makes $38,000 per year and 

estimated it would take 5 years for her to complete her nursing degree. On 

her own, Wife will be unable to afford health insurance, which costs $500 

per month. 

¶4 Citing Wife’s lack of property to meet her reasonable needs

and her inability to be self-sufficient, the court found Wife eligible for 

spousal maintenance. The court also found Husband capable of paying 

spousal maintenance and ordered him to pay Wife $1,000 per month for a 

term of six years.

¶5 The court equally divided the community property. As part 

of this division, the court awarded Husband the travel trailer and personal 

property in the marital home. It ordered Husband to make equalization 

payments to Wife for her share of the property. In awarding wife her 

attorney fees, the court also found that Husband acted unreasonably in the 

litigation by failing to “provide any discovery/disclosure to [Wife].”
VARGAS v. VARGAS

Decision of the Court

3

¶6 Husband timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction. A.R.S. § 

12-120.21(A)(1). We note that Husband filed a “Notice of Transcript Order” 

which indicated that he “ordered a transcript of the Evidentiary Hearing

held on August 9, 2023 from Escribers.” But Husband did not file a 

transcript with this Court. 

DISCUSSION

¶7 Husband challenges the superior court’s award of spousal 

maintenance to Wife and the order compelling him to pay Wife $5,000 in 

equalization for personal property in the marital home. Wife did not file an 

answering brief. When “a debatable issue is raised by the appeal, and no 

reasonable excuse for appellee’s failure to file a brief is shown, we [should] 

assume the latter confesses error.” Navarro v. State, 32 Ariz. 119, 120–21 

(1927). Because Husband has not raised a debatable issue, we do not treat 

Wife’s failure to file an answering brief as a confession of error.

I. Spousal Maintenance

¶8 Husband argues Wife was ineligible for spousal maintenance. 

He complains “there is no proof of [his] income” and the court awarded a 

six-year term of maintenance despite Wife’s testimony that she could obtain 

a nursing degree in five years.

¶9 We review a spousal maintenance award for an abuse of 

discretion, Leathers v. Leathers, 216 Ariz. 374, 376, ¶ 9 (App. 2007), and affirm 

if there is any reasonable evidence to support it, Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, 193 

Ariz. 343, 348, ¶ 14 (App. 1998). To qualify for spousal maintenance, a 

spouse must show eligibility under Section 25-319(A). If the requesting 

spouse is found eligible, the court must consider both parties’ 

circumstances to determine whether, and in what amount, to grant an 

award of spousal maintenance. A.R.S. § 25-319(B); In re Marriage of Cotter, 

245 Ariz. 82, 85, ¶ 7 (App. 2018).

¶10 Because Husband did not file transcripts from the evidentiary 

hearing, we presume the record supports the superior court’s findings. State 

ex rel. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. v. Burton, 205 Ariz. 27, 30, ¶ 16 (App. 2003); see 

ARCAP 11(c) (it is appellant’s duty to order and file transcripts for appeal).

¶11 The superior court determined that Wife was eligible for 

spousal maintenance. It credited Wife’s testimony that she makes $38,000 

per year and is unable to afford an apartment or health insurance on her 

own. See A.R.S. § 25-319(a)(2) (lack of earning ability to be self-sufficient 

establishes eligibility for spousal maintenance). The court also noted the 
VARGAS v. VARGAS

Decision of the Court

4

only community property is the marital home, and that the parties had a 

long marriage. See A.R.S. § 25-319(a)(1), (5). Because we presume the record 

supports these findings, the court did not err in finding Wife eligible for 

spousal maintenance.

¶12 After considering the factors outlined in Section 25-319(B), the 

court ordered Husband to pay Wife $1,000 per month for six years.

Husband claims that “there is no proof of [his] income,” but the court heard 

conflicting testimony about Husband’s income, and he failed to provide 

any discovery or disclosure to substantiate his testimony. The court 

resolved this conflicting testimony in favor of Wife, and we will not secondguess the court’s resolution of conflicting testimony or matters of 

credibility. Gutierrez, 193 Ariz. at 348, ¶ 14. And again we presume the 

record supports the court’s resolution. Burton, 205 Ariz. at 30, ¶ 16. We also 

presume there is evidence to support the court’s decision to award spousal 

maintenance for six years, even though wife testified she only needed five 

years to obtain a nursing degree, given the absence of a transcript. See id.

The court did not abuse its discretion.

II. Equalization Payment

¶13 We review the division of community property for an abuse 

of discretion. In re Marriage of Pownall, 197 Ariz. 577, 581, ¶ 15 (App. 2000).

Husband argues that the court erred by ordering him to pay Wife for half 

the value of personal property in the marital residence. He insists, “[t]here 

was no evidence to show that there was $10,000 in personal property [in the 

marital home]!” But again, because Husband did not file a transcript from 

the evidentiary hearing, we presume the evidence supports the court’s 

valuation of the property in the home at $10,000. Burton, 205 Ariz. at 30, ¶ 

16. As such, the court did not abuse its discretion by awarding the property

to Husband and ordering him to pay half the value of the property to Wife.

CONCLUSION

¶14 We affirm.