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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

LISA SWANSON, Petitioner/Appellee,

v.

JOEL BALL, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CV 23-0473 FC

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. FC2015-054409

The Honorable Michael Valenzuela, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

JD Ball, Scottsdale

Respondent/Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

Presiding Judge Angela K. Paton and Judge Michael S. Catlett joined.

FILED 06-06-2024
SWANSON v. BALL

Decision of the Court

2

M O R S E, Judge:

¶1 Joel Ball ("Husband") challenges the superior court's denial of 

his petition to enforce terms in the parties' dissolution decree that pertain

to past marital community businesses. Although Lisa Swansen ("Wife") did 

not file an answering brief, we affirm because Husband has not raised any 

debatable issues on appeal.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 The parties' marriage was dissolved in 2017. Before 

dissolution, the parties owned two business entities: Hybritech Medical 

Group ("Hybritech") and Columbia Healthcare ("Columbia"). In the 

dissolution decree, the superior court granted Husband "the entire 

community interest in Hybritech and Columbia, and any subsidiary or 

related entity that the community had an interest in, with no equalization 

due to [Wife]." It also directed the parties to "equally share any liabilities 

associated with Hybritech or Columbia . . . incurred on or before May 31, 

2016." 

¶3 Husband petitioned to enforce these provisions in August 

2022. He alleged Wife had formed a new business, MobileOneDoc LLC 

("MOD"), "from Hybritech taking the clients, the patients, the staff, the 

business plan, and all assets from Hybritech community interest [sic]." On 

that basis, he requested "all revenue generated from [MOD] . . . from the 

date of ruling to today and thereafter" ("MOD Claim"). He also alleged 

"[t]he Columbia liability prior to May 2016 totaled $240,000," and on that 

basis he requested an additional $120,000 from Wife ("Contribution 

Claim"). 

¶4 Wife moved pursuant to Arizona Rule of Family Law 

Procedure ("Rule") 29 to dismiss Husband's petition. The court dismissed

the MOD Claim, finding that while Husband "allege[d] that [Wife] stole 

customers from the community business," he did not allege that MOD is "a 

subsidiary or related entity to the two community businesses." The parties 

proceeded to an evidentiary hearing on the Contribution Claim and Wife's 

then-pending petition to enforce child support. After the hearing, the court 

issued a signed Rule 78(b) judgment denying the Contribution Claim, 

finding that Husband "provided only a vague accounting of the debts"

through monthly bank statements that did not show "what debts the 

company owed on May 31, 2016 . . . [or] that Husband paid these debts." 

Husband appealed. We have jurisdiction under A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1)

and -2101(A)(1).
SWANSON v. BALL

Decision of the Court

3

DISCUSSION

¶5 Husband contends that the court erred in dismissing the 

MOD Claim and by ruling that Wife did not violate the divorce decree. 

Specifically, he argues that the MOD claim is a related entity to both 

Hybritech and Columbia and the bank records he provided to the court 

were sufficient evidence to prove Wife did not pay her liabilities. Wife

failed to submit an answering brief. When an appellee fails to file an 

answering brief and debatable issues exist, we consider such failure a 

confession of reversible error. See Mayberry v. Stambaugh, 1 CA-CV 23-0289

FC, 2024 WL 1282653, at *1, ¶ 5 (Ariz. App. Mar. 26, 2024) (mem. decision) 

(Morse, J., specially concurring) ("[W]hen an appeal raises debatable issues, 

and a child's best interests are not at issue, we must treat an appellee's 

failure to respond as a confession of reversible error."); but see Savord v. 

Morton, 235 Ariz. 256, 259, ¶ 9 (App. 2014) (stating that we "may" treat a 

failure to file an answering brief as a confession of reversible error on 

debatable issues). We therefore examine the record to determine whether 

Husband has raised debatable issues. Meinhard-Com. Corp. v. Oxford Shops, 

Inc., 13 Ariz. App. 592, 593 (1971); see Nat'l Exhibition Co. v. Marx, 9 Ariz. 

App. 482, 483 (1969) (stating that reversal based on confession of error 

"requires a determination that appellant's contentions are substantially 

debatable").

I. MOD Claim.

¶6 We review the grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule 

29(a)(6) and the legal conclusions therein de novo. Cox v. Ponce, 251 Ariz. 

302, 304, ¶ 7 (2021). And we defer to the superior court's "findings of fact 

when they are supported by the record and not clearly erroneous." State v. 

Hulsey, 243 Ariz. 367, 377, ¶ 17 (2018). 

¶7 Husband contends the court erred in finding he did not allege 

MOD is a related entity of Hybritech. In support, Husband cites his 

allegation that Wife "created [MOD] from Hybritech taking the clients, the 

patients, the staff, the business plan, and all assets from Hybritech 

community interest." He also contends the court should have treated the 

Rule 29 motion to dismiss as a Rule 79 motion for summary judgment

because the court used "matters outside the pleadings."

1 But Husband did 

not raise this argument before the court and has waived it on appeal. See

1 Because Rule 56 relates to discovery, we assume Husband intended 

to argue the motion should be converted to a Rule 79 motion for summary 

judgment.
SWANSON v. BALL

Decision of the Court

4

Moretto v. Samaritan Health Sys., 190 Ariz. 343, 346 (App. 1997) (noting that 

failure to raise "any procedural irregularity" before the superior court, 

waives the procedural issue on appeal). Waiver aside, the court was not 

required to convert the motion to dismiss to a motion for summary 

judgment because the order dismissing the claim only relies on matters that 

were brought in Husband's affidavit or the decree. See Coleman v. City of 

Mesa, 230 Ariz. 352, 356, ¶ 9 (2012) (noting that a "complaint's exhibits, or 

public records regarding matters referenced in a complaint, are not 'outside 

the pleading,' and courts may consider such documents without converting 

a Rule [29(a)](6) motion into a summary judgment motion")

¶8 The court found that Husband only alleged that "[Wife] stole 

customers from the community business," and did not allege "that [MOD]

is a subsidiary or related entity to the two community businesses." The 

decree granted Husband the community interest in Hybritech, Columbia, 

and "any subsidiary or related entity that the community had an interest 

in." But Husband admitted in his motion for reconsideration that he did 

not allege a subsidiary relationship, arguing instead that "[t]he gravamen 

of the [petition] is predicated on it being a given that MOD is a subsidiary 

of [Hybritech]." That Wife allegedly took "all assets" from Hybritech does 

not mean MOD is a subsidiary of Hybritech. On appeal, we do not reweigh 

the evidence presented to the court. Gutierrez v. Fox, 242 Ariz. 259, 272, ¶ 

49 (App. 2017). Because Husband's argument challenges the court's 

evaluation of the weight of the evidence presented below, he has not raised 

debatable issues as to the MOD Claim. 

II. Contribution Claim.

¶9 Husband also contends the court "abused [its discretion] in 

claiming bank statements do not show a company's paid debts" and by 

ruling that the "bank statements are only a vague accounting of the debts." 

Because the court held an evidentiary hearing on the Contribution Claim, 

we review its ruling for an abuse of discretion. See Borja v. Borja, 254 Ariz. 

309, 313, ¶ 10 (App. 2022) (noting that "we defer to the superior court's 

factual findings that are supported by competent evidence").

¶10 Although Husband indicated in his case management 

statement that he had ordered a hearing transcript, there is no transcript in 

the record. Absent a transcript, we presume the evidence presented at the 

hearing supported the court's findings. Blair v. Burgener, 226 Ariz. 213, 217, 

¶ 9 (App. 2010). And the bank statements in the record do not by 

themselves indicate the court abused its discretion in finding they "do not 

show that [Husband] paid [the Columbia] debts." To the extent that 
SWANSON v. BALL

Decision of the Court

5

additional argument was presented at the hearing, we presume they 

support the court's ruling. See Kohler v. Kohler, 211 Ariz. 106, 108, ¶ 8 n.1 

(App. 2005). Therefore, Husband failed to raise debatable issues as to the 

Contribution Claim. 

CONCLUSION

¶11 Because Husband has not raised debatable issues, we do not

treat Wife's failure to file an answering brief as a confession of reversible 

error. We affirm the superior court's rulings denying the MOD Claim and 

the Contribution Claim. See Pinal Cnty., Juv. Action No. S-389, 151 Ariz. 564, 

565 (App. 1986) (affirming when "[o]ur review of the appellant's 

memorandum and of the record on appeal . . . shows that the issues raised 

are not debatable"). We do not award Wife taxable costs because she did 

not file an answering brief.