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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

SHIRLEY ANNE LEWIS, Petitioner/Appellee,

v.

MARTIN DANIEL LYNCH, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CV 15-0724 FC

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. FC2011-002533

The Honorable Katherine Cooper, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Shirley Anne Lewis, Chandler

Petitioner/Appellee

Martin Daniel Lynch, Tempe

Respondent/Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani and Judge Samuel A. Thumma joined.
LEWIS v. LYNCH

Decision of the Court

2

W I N T H R O P, Judge:

¶1 Martin Daniel Lynch (“Father”) appeals the family court’s 

order converting to a judgment an order affirming that Father owes an 

equalization payment and interest to Shirley Anne Lewis (“Mother”), and 

denying Father’s motions alleging professional misconduct. For the 

following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Mother and Father were divorced on June 14, 2012. The 

decree of dissolution incorporated a May 24, 2012 settlement agreement,

which provided that Father would pay Mother $30,000 as an equalization 

payment within thirty days of signing the settlement agreement. In 

agreeing to the equalization payment, Father waived any claims he had 

against Mother, and Mother waived her claims for child support arrearages, 

previously awarded attorneys’ fees, reimbursement for previous child or 

school expenses, and a portion of the proceeds from the sale of an

automobile.

¶3 On June 27, 2012, Mother filed a motion for contempt, 

alleging, inter alia, that Father had failed to pay her the $30,000 equalization 

payment. After an evidentiary hearing, the court denied Mother’s motion 

for contempt, but found that Father’s obligation to pay the equalization 

payment was past due. After finding that Father had assets in excess of 

$500,000 and the capability to earn more than $100,000 per year, the court’s 

minute entry indicated judgment was being entered against Father for the 

$30,000 principal amount plus accumulated interest, and ordered Father to 

commence making payments in the amount of $1,500 per month starting 

January 1, 2013.

1

¶4 In February 2013, Mother filed a petition against Father to

enforce the equalization payment obligation. On March 22, 2013, the family 

court informed the parties that it did not have the authority to enforce 

“Father’s judgment payment,” but affirmed the judgment in favor of 

Mother and against Father.

¶5 In August 2015, Mother filed a motion requesting the family 

court enter a formal judgment against Father for the equalization payment 

in the amount of $30,000 plus statutory interest. Father contested the 

motion but did not dispute his obligation to make the payment. Father also 

 

1 The court’s docket does not reflect the entry of a separate judgment.
LEWIS v. LYNCH

Decision of the Court

3

filed a motion alleging professional misconduct by individuals involved in 

the case, and requested the court order a criminal investigation.

¶6 On September 25, 2015, the court granted Mother’s motion 

and, noting that it did not find on the docket a separately entered judgment 

for the equalization payment, entered an order converting that obligation 

to a formal judgment, plus interest, against Father. The court declined to 

take action on Father’s requests for a criminal investigation on the ground 

that the Arizona Rules of Family Law Procedure did not authorize the court 

to do so. Father timely appealed the court’s orders. We have appellate 

jurisdiction over the family court’s order pursuant to Arizona Revised 

Statutes sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2016) and 12-2101(A)(1) (2016).

ANALYSIS

¶7 An appellant must cite to the record in the opening brief.

ARCAP 13(a). Failure to do so may constitute waiver as to the issues raised. 

Delmastro & Eells v. Taco Bell Corp., 228 Ariz. 134, 137 n.2, ¶ 7, 263 P.3d 683, 

686 n.2 (App. 2011). An appellant is also responsible for ordering and 

providing the court with the transcript of any relevant evidentiary hearing. 

ARCAP 11(c). Here, Father did not cite to the record in his brief or provide 

a transcript of the family court hearing, which may be deemed a waiver. 

See Delmastro, 228 Ariz. at 137 n.2, ¶ 7, 263 P.3d at 686 n.2; ARCAP 11(c). In 

the exercise of our discretion, however, we will consider the merits of his 

arguments. See Delmastro, 228 Ariz. at 137 n.2, ¶ 7, 263 P.3d at 686 n.2

(stating the appellate court may entertain deficient briefs on the merits). 

But to the extent Father contends that the court’s order is contrary to the 

evidence, we presume that the testimony and other evidence addressed in 

the missing transcript supports the court’s factual findings and conclusions 

of law. State ex rel. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. v. Burton, 205 Ariz. 27, 30, ¶ 16, 66 P.3d 

70, 73 (App. 2003).

I. Equalization Payment

¶8 Father contests the family court’s order converting the unpaid 

equalization payment and interest to a judgment against him.

2 Father

argues that the parties’ settlement agreement, which was incorporated into 

the decree and outlined the terms of the equalization payment, should be 

 

2 Father does not directly refer to the equalization payment in his 

brief; however, he argues that “all provisions of the Order of September 25, 

2015 . . . are not actionable.”
LEWIS v. LYNCH

Decision of the Court

4

vacated because, in his view, it was based upon coercion and undue 

influence. To the extent Father challenges the terms of the June 2012 decree

and the incorporated agreement, however, his appeal is untimely and this 

court lacks appellate jurisdiction to consider it. See ARCAP 9(a) (requiring 

notice of appeal to be filed within thirty days after the entry of judgment 

from which the appeal is taken). In short, the time to appeal or otherwise 

contest the final decree, including Father’s equalization payment 

obligations, has long since passed. Accordingly, this court lacks appellate 

jurisdiction to review those obligations, which became final long ago.

II. Allegations of Criminal Misconduct

¶9 Father argues the family court erred by not taking action to 

address his allegations of criminal misconduct on the part of various 

professionals. But Father does not allege specific facts or cite to any ruling 

we have appellate jurisdiction to address. See ARCAP 13(a)(7)(A) 

(providing that appellant’s argument must contain “contentions 

concerning each issue presented for review, with supporting reasons for 

each contention, and with citations of legal authorities, and appropriate 

references to the portions of the record on which the appellant relies”); 

Melissa W. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 238 Ariz. 115, 117-18, ¶ 9, 357 P.3d 150, 

152-53 (App. 2015) (declining to address an appellant’s arguments that 

were not supported with citation to relevant authority). Moreover, if Father 

believes there has been actionable misconduct, he can provide that 

information to agencies that have authority to act on such misconduct. 

Similarly, if Father believes that applicable statutes, rules, and operating 

procedures of the family court should be changed, his remedy is through 

the legislature or to submit a rule change petition.3

 

3 Indeed, as evidenced by his petition to create ARFLP Rule 96, Father 

understands there is a process by which procedural changes are made 

within the family court system.
LEWIS v. LYNCH

Decision of the Court

5

CONCLUSION

¶10 The family court’s order converting the court’s prior orders 

into a judgment is affirmed. Likewise, we affirm the family court’s 

declining Father’s request to refer any professionals associated with this 

case for criminal investigation and/or prosecution. 4

 

4 We do not address Mother’s attempts to raise issues in her 

answering brief because she has not filed a cross-appeal. See ARCAP 8(b).