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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

VICTOR LEDO, Petitioner/Appellant,

v.

IRMA LEDO, Respondent/Appellee.

No. 1 CA-CV 14-0331 FC

FILED 5-7-2015

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. FC2011-000009

The Honorable Christopher A. Coury, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Victor Ledo, Mesa

Petitioner/Appellant

Irma de la Cruz Ledo, Apache Junction

Respondent/Appellee
LEDO v. LEDO

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Donn Kessler delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding 

Judge John C. Gemmill and Judge Kenton D. Jones joined.

K E S S L E R, Judge:

¶1 Victor Ledo (“Husband”) appeals from the superior court’s 

post-judgment order affirming his obligation to pay Irma Ledo (“Wife”) 

$35,534 as reimbursement for funds he received from the sale of their 

community property. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in 

January 2011. Prior to trial, at a settlement conference in May 2013, all 

pending issues were resolved under a Rule 69 agreement. See Ariz. R. Fam. 

L. P. 69. The current dispute arises from the disposition of $127,000 in net 

proceeds received from the sale of the parties’ California residence in 2009. 

Husband transferred $78,500 of those funds into his personal savings 

account. Pursuant to the Rule 69 agreement, Husband was to receive credit 

against the proceeds if he could provide documentation to support his 

claim that he had used all or part of those proceeds to satisfy community 

debts:

Within forty-five days, [Husband] shall provide to [Wife] an 

allocation as to what, if any, of those funds were spent on the 

community and how those funds were spent. The parties 

agree that whatever amount was spent on the community, 

[Husband] will receive credit for having spent on the 

community and whatever funds are unallocated or not spent 

on the community [Wife] will be entitled to reimbursement 

for, for her portion of the community share of those funds. 

[Husband] will provide bank statements, receipts, credit card 

receipts and whatever other tangible receipts he can provide with 

respect to those expenditures. 

(Emphasis added.) Although the superior court found his submission of 

expenses was untimely and disorganized, it admitted and considered the

accounting documentation in the interests of justice, so as not to prejudice, 

or afford a windfall to, either party. The court thereafter ordered Husband 
LEDO v. LEDO

Decision of the Court

3

to pay Wife an equalization payment of $59,784.97, which represented 50% 

of the unallocated funds from the California property sale proceeds after 

offsets, but allowed for Father to file simultaneous motions to correct 

mistake, Ariz. R. Fam. L. P. 85, and to appoint a Special Master, Ariz. R. 

Fam. L. P. 72, if he desired further consideration of the issue.

¶3 At Husband’s request, the superior court appointed a Special 

Master, and granted him full authority to make recommended findings and 

orders regarding the financial accounting of the community funds and 

whether Husband was entitled to any additional reduction of his 

equalization payment. See Ariz. R. Fam. L. P. 72. In the meantime, 

Husband’s 50% interest in the proceeds from the sale of other community 

properties was held in escrow pending resolution of the dispute. The 

Special Master held an evidentiary hearing in January 2014, and after 

hearing testimony and reviewing the records, found that Husband failed to 

meet his burden of proving he was entitled to any additional offset. As a 

result, the Special Master recommended releasing all the funds in escrow to 

Wife. 

¶4 After the evidentiary hearing, Wife filed an application for 

attorneys’ fees and costs. In her request, Wife also sought sanctions against 

Husband for failure to disclose certain requested documents. The Special 

Master denied Wife’s request:

[P]ursuant to an analysis of existing orders in this case and 

balancing the parties’ finances it does not appear to the 

Special Master that an award of attorney’s fees and costs . . . 

would be appropriate. 

In her request for attorney’s fees and costs [Wife] seeks 

a sanction against [Husband] for the failure to disclose 

requested documents pertaining to this controversy. The 

Special Master has recommended that [Husband] not receive 

any further credits. The Special Master has recommended 

that the remaining funds held in escrow be awarded to [Wife]. 

The Special Master’s recommendation is based upon 

[Husband]’s failure to provide the documentary evidence to 

support his claim. In the opinion of the Special Master that is 

sanction enough for this matter.

¶5 Husband filed an objection to the Special Master’s report and 

recommendations, arguing there was no legal authority to deny Husband 

credit for the documented expenses or to impose a sanction. The superior 
LEDO v. LEDO

Decision of the Court

4

court found the record supported the Special Master’s recommendations

and awarded Wife $33,008.97.1 In addition, the court found that Husband 

misconstrued the language in the Special Master’s report, and that no 

sanction was actually imposed:

[In] the Special Master Report, the Special Master wrote: “In the 

opinion of the Special Master that is sanction enough for this 

matter.” [Husband] construes this language to mean that the 

award of the remaining funds in escrow to [Wife] is a sanction 

against him. Although the Court views the use of the term 

“sanction” as an unfortunate choice of words, particularly for 

a self-represented litigant such as [Husband], the Court finds 

that [Husband] has taken this out of context and 

misconstrued the ruling. . . . The Special Master considered 

the equities of the situation, and concluded that it would not 

be equitable for [Wife] — who was receiving the remaining 

funds in escrow, pending Court approval — to receive an 

additional award of attorneys’ fees. In this context, the Court 

finds that the Special Master’s ruling simply concluded that it 

was neither fair nor equitable for [Husband] to pay the 

attorneys’ fees and costs of [Wife]. The Special Master did not 

impose a “sanction” against [Husband] in the form of not 

allowing any additional offsets.

¶6 Husband timely appealed the final order. We have 

jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) sections 12-

120.21(A)(1)2 and -2101(A)(1).

ISSUES AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶7 On appeal, Husband argues that the superior court abused its 

discretion by not enforcing the Rule 69 agreement and imposing a sanction 

against him as recommended by the Special Master. We view evidence in 

the light most favorable to upholding the decision, Krisko v. John Hancock 

Mut. Life Ins. Co., 15 Ariz. App. 304, 305, 488 P.2d 509, 510 (1971), and “will 

not disturb a trial court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous,” Hrudka 

v. Hrudka, 186 Ariz. 84, 92, 919 P.2d 179, 187 (App. 1995), superseded by statute 

 

1 After a December 2013 hearing, $35,534.97 remained in escrow. Husband 

received credit for mortgage payments, bills, and expenses, totaling $2,526. 

The remainder, $33,008.97, was paid to Wife.

2 Absent material revisions from the relevant date, we cite a statute’s current 

version.
LEDO v. LEDO

Decision of the Court

5

on other grounds as stated in Myrick v. Maloney, 235 Ariz. 491, 494, ¶ 8, 333 

P.3d 818, 821 (App. 2014). “A court abuses its discretion if it commits an 

error of law in reaching a discretionary conclusion, it reaches a conclusion 

without considering the evidence, it commits some other substantial error 

of law, or ‘the record fails to provide substantial evidence to support the 

trial court’s finding.’” Flying Diamond Airpark, L.L.C. v. Meienberg, 215 Ariz. 

44, 50, ¶ 27, 156 P.3d 1149, 1155 (App. 2007) (quoting Grant v. Ariz. Pub. Serv. 

Co., 133 Ariz. 434, 456, 652 P.2d 507, 529 (1982)). “Moreover, we review 

legal issues and the application of law de novo.” Walsh v. Walsh, 230 Ariz. 

486, 490, ¶ 9, 286 P.3d 1095, 1099 (App. 2012).

DISCUSSION

I. The Superior Court Did Not Err In Its Enforcement of the Rule 69 

Agreement.

¶8 Husband first argues that the superior court erred in failing 

to enforce the Rule 69 agreement and exceeded its authority in denying him 

credit for all of his documented expenses. Husband essentially argues that 

because he submitted some documentation, he complied with the Rule 69 

agreement and is automatically entitled to a reduction of his equalization 

payment. We disagree.

¶9 Pursuant to the Rule 69 agreement, Husband was to receive 

credit against the net proceeds received from the sale of the parties’ 

California residence if he could provide evidence that the money was spent 

on the community. See supra ¶ 2. Although Husband provided the superior

court and Special Master with voluminous records of payments on 

community expenses, the documents detail expenditures made from the 

parties’ joint checking account. Thus, as the court concluded, Husband did 

not provide evidence that he paid any of the $78,500 deposited into his 

personal savings account on community expenditures:

[Husband] did show expenditures on community expenses. 

However, the expenditures for community expenses came 

from the parties’ joint checking account . . . . What this means 

is that [Husband] has offered voluminous support to 

document matters which are not in dispute and for which the 

Court and Mother already were giving him credit — namely, 

the community expenditures out of the parties’ joint checking 

account. What [Husband] has not done with his voluminous 

documents is demonstrate that he paid all of the $78,500 —

monies that he deposited into his personal savings account —
LEDO v. LEDO

Decision of the Court

6

for community expenditures. The Special Master Report noted 

that “[Husband] did not provide the money market 

statements.” Without such documentary evidence, 

[Husband] did not prove by even a preponderance of the 

evidence that there was a connection, or nexus, between the 

community bills he paid and the $78,500 in community funds 

that he transferred to his own savings account.

Based on this record, the superior court did not err in agreeing with the

Special Master’s report that Husband failed to meet his burden of proof. 

II. The Superior Court Did Not Sanction Husband.

¶10 Husband next argues the superior court abused its discretion 

by imposing a $33,534 sanction against him pursuant to a purported

recommendation by the Special Master. 
LEDO v. LEDO

Decision of the Court

7

¶11 As the superior court discussed, although the Special Master 

used the phrase “that is sanction enough for this matter” in his report, when 

viewed in context, it is clear that Wife’s request for sanctions was, in fact, 

denied. See supra ¶¶ 4-5.3 Accordingly, there was no abuse of discretion.

CONCLUSION

¶12 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

 

3 In his reply brief, Husband argues that the court erred in denying him 

$49,500 in credit for mortgage payments made between January 2011 and 

October 2013. “We will not address issues raised for the first time in a reply 

brief.” Marco C. v. Sean C., 218 Ariz. 216, 219 n.1, ¶ 8, 181 P.3d 1137, 1140 

n.1 (App. 2008). In addition, Husband suggests the superior court judge 

erred in failing to disclose his working relationship with the Special Master. 

Because Husband failed to develop this argument, we consider it 

abandoned. See ARCAP 13(a)(6) (requiring the appellant’s briefs to 

“concisely and clearly set forth . . . [a]n argument which shall contain the 

contentions of the appellant with respect to the issues presented, and the 

reasons therefor, with citations to the authorities, statutes and parts of the 

record relied on”); see also DeElena v. S. Pac. Co., 121 Ariz. 563, 572, 592 P.2d 

759, 768 (1979).