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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ROBERT WAYNE MANN,

Petitioner/Appellant,

v.

GINGER IRENE HESTER,

Respondent/Appellee.

No. 1 CA-CV 21-0427 FC

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. FC2020-094531

The Honorable Marvin L. Davis, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Alongi Law Firm, PLLC, Phoenix

By Thomas P. Alongi

Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant

Ginger Irene Hester, Queen Creek

Respondent/Appellee

FILED 3-22-2022
MANN v. HESTER

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge James B. Morse Jr. delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Judge Randall M. Howe joined.

M O R S E, Judge:

¶1 Robert Mann ("Husband") appeals from a decree of 

dissolution, contesting the family court's calculation of Ginger Hester's1

("Wife") income and corresponding decision not to award spousal 

maintenance. For the following reasons, we affirm. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Husband and Wife were married for almost 21 years when 

Husband filed for divorce in 2020. The parties have one minor child 

("Child"). Separately, Wife has two adult children. Before the divorce, 

Husband suffered a stroke that left him disabled. At trial in May 2021, the 

family court heard testimony from Husband and Wife.

¶3 Husband sought indefinite spousal maintenance from Wife.

Husband testified that he is unable to work, lives off Social Security 

disability income while staying with his mother, and believes Wife could 

afford to pay "$2,000 a month in spousal maintenance."

¶4 Wife works in real estate as a property manager. Her financial 

affidavit stated an average gross monthly income of $3,985, including $970 

per month in Social Security benefits received for Child due to Husband's 

disability. Wife testified that she lacked the income to meet her needs and 

that she was living off an inheritance from her deceased father. The 

inheritance consisted of approximately $83,000 and a house, divided 

between Wife and her brother.

¶5 The court admitted Wife's 2019 tax return, showing a gross 

income of $37,400. Other demonstrative exhibits showed Wife's gross 

income in 2020 was $61,880.21 and her income for the first four months of 

2021 was $17,700. Wife explained that she had higher income in 2020 and 

2021 because she earned commissions on the sale of some of her clients' 

1 The family court granted Wife's request to be restored to her former 

name, we therefore amend the caption to reflect the name change.
MANN v. HESTER

Decision of the Court

3

properties, but the sales reduced her future income stream. She also sold 

the parties' house, earning them each about $66,000.

¶6 The court took the matter under advisement and issued a 

decision in May 2021. After balancing the statutory factors in A.R.S. § 25-

319, the court found that Husband "established a statutory basis for 

entitlement to an award of spousal maintenance" but Wife "is not capable 

of paying spousal maintenance" and did not award spousal maintenance. 

¶7 Husband appealed and we have jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 

12-2101(A)(1). 

DISCUSSION

¶8 Spousal maintenance awards are reviewed for an abuse of 

discretion. Leathers v. Leathers, 216 Ariz. 374, 376, ¶ 9 (App. 2007). We view 

the evidence "in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court's 

decision" and will affirm unless the record is "'devoid of competent 

evidence to support' the decision." Little v. Little, 193 Ariz. 518, 520, ¶ 5 

(1999) (quoting Fought v. Fought, 94 Ariz. 187, 188 (1963)). When, as here, 

neither party requested findings of fact or conclusions of law before trial, 

see Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 82(a), we presume that the family court "found 

every fact necessary to support the judgment" and will affirm if any 

reasonable construction of the evidence justifies the decision, Neal v. Neal, 

116 Ariz. 590, 592 (1977) (citation omitted).

¶9 The amount and duration of spousal maintenance is 

determined pursuant to A.R.S. § 25-319(B). The family court must consider 

thirteen factors, including the "ability of the spouse from whom 

maintenance is sought to meet that spouse's needs while meeting those of 

the spouse seeking maintenance." A.R.S. § 25-319(B)(4). Here, the court 

considered all the factors and found, in part, that Wife "does not have the 

means to pay her monthly expenses, which includes providing for the 

parties' child, and contribute to [Husband's] financial needs." Husband 

disputes this finding.

¶10 Husband first argues the court failed to address the Child's 

Social Security benefits and that those benefits were three times Husband's 

statutory child support obligation. The court did not order Husband to pay 

any child support, but found the disability benefits "exceeds any monthly 

child support obligation Father would be required to pay." The court did 

not specifically make a finding regarding Wife's income, other than the 

$3,985 per month used on its Child Support Worksheet. According to 

Wife's testimony, that amount includes the Social Security payments.
MANN v. HESTER

Decision of the Court

4

Husband points to nothing in the record to show that the court did not 

consider the Social Security payments when determining Wife's ability to 

pay spousal maintenance.2 See Fuentes v. Fuentes, 209 Ariz. 51, 55, ¶ 18 (App. 

2004) (as amended) (noting "evidence is presumed to have been fully 

considered by the court prior to issuing its decision"). 

¶11 Husband also argues the court should have considered Wife's 

inheritance as income. The court found the inheritance was a gift and Wife's

sole and separate property. Contrary to Husband's assertion, the record 

does not support that disbursement of the inheritance was a "regular and 

continuous" gift. Cf. Cummings v. Cummings, 182 Ariz. 383, 384 (App. 1994) 

(holding that mother's receipt of "$2,400 a month from her parents on a 

regular basis as a gift" supported a change in child support obligation). 

Although the inheritance was certainly an asset the for the court to consider 

when determining whether Wife could meet her needs, Wife testified that 

the inheritance was split between her and her brother and had been 

depleted by the time of trial to "pay the bills."

¶12 Finally, Husband begrudges Wife the use of some of the 

inheritance for the benefit of her adult children, and notes that she inherited 

half of her father's house. But Father does not challenge Wife's expenses

estimate. Wife's affidavit of financial information estimates $6,170 in 

monthly expenses and, like "butter that has been scraped over too much 

bread,"3 the court could reasonably conclude Wife's income could not be 

stretched to meet her and the Child's needs. Even if Wife had kept the full 

inheritance funds, the court could still reasonably find the inheritance 

insufficient to allow Wife to support herself, the Child, and Husband

indefinitely. See Wineinger v. Wineinger, 137 Ariz. 194, 197-98 (App. 1983)

(concluding spouse did not possess sufficient property, under A.R.S. § 25-

319(A)(2), because she would be required to consume an investment's 

principal and interest until "there would be nothing left upon which she 

could draw"). 

2 We express no opinion on whether a child's Social Security benefits 

qualify as a parent's "income" for spousal maintenance purposes. But see

Hamblen v. Hamblen, 203 Ariz. 342, 345-46, ¶¶ 14, 22 (App. 2002) (prohibiting 

use of adoption subsidy to offset child support obligation, in part, because 

the subsidy belongs to the child).

3 J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring 58 (Ballantine Books 1965).
MANN v. HESTER

Decision of the Court

5

¶13 Viewed in the light most favorable to affirming the family 

court's order, Little, 193 Ariz. at 520, ¶ 5; Neal, 116 Ariz. at 592, we find no 

abuse of direction. 

CONCLUSION

¶14 We affirm. We also deny Husband his request for attorney 

fees and costs.