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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

RODNEY F KRENZ, Petitioner/Appellee,

v.

TRACY NEUMAN, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CV 16-0657 FC

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. FC2013-091249

The Honorable Peter A. Thompson, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

McWhorter Law Firm, PLLC, Mesa

By Heath H. McWhorter

Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee

Tracy Neuman, Mesa

Respondent/Appellant

FILED 12-26-2017
KRENZ v. NEUMAN

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Diane M. Johnsen delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop and Judge Maria Elena Cruz joined.

J O H N S E N, Judge:

¶1 Tracy Neuman ("Mother") challenges the superior court's 

rulings regarding legal decision-making authority, parenting time, child 

support and spousal maintenance. For the reasons discussed below, we 

affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Rodney F. Krenz ("Father") petitioned for dissolution of the 

parties' marriage in 2013. The parties had one minor child at the time. 

Following trial, the superior court dissolved the marriage but did not divide 

the parties' property and debt because Father had filed for Chapter 13 

bankruptcy protection. The court did, however, adopt the parties' legal 

decision-making authority and parenting-time agreement and ordered that 

neither party would pay child support. The parties later agreed to a 

division of certain assets and to sell the marital home under Arizona Rule 

of Family Law Procedure 69.

¶3 After the bankruptcy court lifted the stay, Father petitioned 

for distribution of community property, then filed a second petition to 

modify legal decision-making, parenting time and child support, alleging 

that Mother had threatened to commit suicide in front of the child. Father 

also contended Mother had reneged on the parties' agreement to sell the 

marital home. Mother separately petitioned for "an immediate hearing to 

determine what is best for the safety and well being" of the child and asked

the court to award her the marital home.

¶4 After an evidentiary hearing, the superior court awarded 

Father sole legal decision-making authority and granted Mother supervised 

parenting time for two hours each week. The court ordered Mother to pay 

$470 in monthly child support and denied Mother's request for $1,470 in 

monthly spousal maintenance. The court also divided the community 

property and ordered the parties to sell the marital home. It further

awarded the parties' business to Father and granted Mother an equalization 
KRENZ v. NEUMAN

Decision of the Court

3

payment of $3,000, based on its finding that the business was worth $6,000. 

The court found both parties had "removed a great deal of property from 

the marital residence" and awarded Mother all the remaining items, which 

it found were mostly of "little to no value." The court also denied Father's 

request for attorney's fees.

¶5 Mother moved for reconsideration, citing Arizona Rules of 

Family Law Procedure 83(A) and 85(C), which the court denied. She then 

timely appealed the court's rulings regarding legal decision-making, 

parenting time, child support, spousal maintenance and division of 

property. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the 

Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") section 12-

2101(A)(1) (2017).

1

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Decision-Making Authority and Parenting Time.

¶6 Although Mother challenges the superior court's decisionmaking authority and parenting-time rulings, the parties' child turned 18 

in June 2017, mooting those rulings on appeal. See Hall v. World Sav. & Loan 

Ass'n, 189 Ariz. 495, 504 (App. 1997) (case becomes moot if, "as a result of a 

change of circumstances before the appellate decision, action by the 

reviewing court would have no effect on the parties").

B. Child Support.

¶7 Mother next contends the income figures the superior court 

used in calculating child support were incorrect and that Father 

misrepresented his income at trial. We review a child support award for an 

abuse of discretion. Sherman v. Sherman, 241 Ariz. 110, 112, ¶ 9 (App. 2016). 

We will accept the court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. 

Id. at 113, ¶ 9.

¶8 The court found Father's monthly income to be $2,300 and 

Mother's monthly income to be $2,513.33. These figures are consistent with 

the parties' most recent affidavits of financial information. Mother 

presented evidence suggesting Father had taken several vacations in the 

previous year, but Father testified the trips were "very, very modest." 

Father also testified that his girlfriend helped him meet his monthly 

financial needs. The court had discretion to accept Father's testimony on 

 

1 Absent material revision since the relevant date, we cite a statute's 

most current version.
KRENZ v. NEUMAN

Decision of the Court

4

these issues. See Vincent v. Nelson, 238 Ariz. 150, 155, ¶ 18 (App. 2015). We 

therefore conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in fashioning a 

child support award.

C. Spousal Maintenance.

¶9 Mother next challenges the court's denial of her request for 

spousal maintenance. Under A.R.S. § 25-319(A) (2017), the court may 

award spousal maintenance if the spouse seeking maintenance:

1. lacks sufficient property, including property apportioned 

to the spouse, to provide for that spouse's reasonable needs[;]

2. is unable to be self-sufficient through appropriate 

employment or is the custodian of a child whose age or 

condition is such that the custodian should not be required to 

seek employment outside the home or lacks earning ability in 

the labor market adequate to be self-sufficient[;]

3. contributed to the educational opportunities of the other 

spouse[; or]

4. had a marriage of long duration and is of an age that may 

preclude the possibility of gaining employment adequate to 

be self-sufficient.

We will not overturn the superior court's spousal maintenance ruling

absent an abuse of discretion. Dopadre v. Dopadre, 156 Ariz. 30, 32 (App. 

1988).

¶10 The court found Mother did not qualify for spousal 

maintenance because (1) she received multiple rental properties in the 

decree, (2) she admitted to earning at least $30,000 per year, and (3) she had 

been self-sufficient since entry of the decree in 2014. Mother cites no 

evidence refuting any of these findings; she instead argues she should 

receive spousal maintenance because she loaned Father $100,000 in 2007 to 

purchase the parties' business. At trial, the parties disputed whether this

transaction was a loan or an investment. Nonetheless, it is irrelevant to the

analysis of spousal maintenance under the law. See Thomas v. Thomas, 142 

Ariz. 386, 393 (App. 1984) (first step of the spousal maintenance analysis is 

"determin[ing] from the record whether the spouse awarded maintenance 

meets the statutory requirements" of § 25-319(A)). The superior court 

therefore did not err in denying Mother's request for spousal maintenance.
KRENZ v. NEUMAN

Decision of the Court

5

D. Division of Community Property.

¶11 Mother also raises several challenges to the court's division of 

community property. We review the division of property for an abuse of 

discretion except for the court's characterizations of property, which we 

review de novo. Helland v. Helland, 236 Ariz. 197, 199, ¶ 8 (App. 2014).

¶12 Mother first contends the court abused its discretion by 

ordering the parties to sell the marital home, asserting Father schemed to 

force her into selling it. Mother overlooks that the parties entered into an 

agreement under Rule 69 to sell the home. Indeed, she acknowledged the 

agreement but said she later changed her mind. We will not overturn an 

order Mother consented to because she later had a change of heart. In re 

Marriage of Thorn, 235 Ariz. 216, 224, ¶ 35 (App. 2014) ("Having successfully 

persuaded the court to follow this approach, [the party] cannot now argue 

it was erroneous."); Duwyenie v. Moran, 220 Ariz. 501, 506, ¶ 16 (App. 2009).

¶13 Mother next contends the court should have awarded her all 

the equity in the marital home as well as several personal items she 

contends Father misappropriated. She cites no evidence in the record that

would support such an award. The court did not abuse its discretion in 

ordering that the sale proceeds be applied first to any mortgages, then to 

reimburse Father for half of the home maintenance expenses he incurred, 

with any remainder to be distributed equally to the parties.

¶14 Mother also contends the $3,000 equalization payment she 

received for the family business was inadequate. The court based this 

payment on a court-appointed expert's determination that the business was 

worth $6,000. Although Mother disagreed with the expert's conclusions, 

she offered no competent evidence to challenge them.

E. Alleged Bias.

¶15 Finally, Mother contends many of the superior court's rulings 

are the result of bias and prejudice. Adverse rulings alone do not 

demonstrate bias; Mother must demonstrate an extrajudicial source of bias 

or deep-seated favoritism. Stagecoach Trails MHC, L.L.C. v. City of Benson, 

232 Ariz. 562, 568, ¶ 21 (App. 2013). Mother presents no such evidence.

F. Attorney's Fees on Appeal.

¶16 Father requests attorney's fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 25-324(A)

(2017), under which we must consider the parties' financial resources and 

the reasonableness of their positions throughout the proceedings. Keefer v. 
KRENZ v. NEUMAN

Decision of the Court

6

Keefer, 225 Ariz. 437, 441, ¶ 16 (App. 2010). The financial evidence in the 

record does not suggest a significant financial disparity. Father contends 

Mother's positions are unreasonable, but Mother argued the same positions 

in the superior court, and the court found them not unreasonable. On this 

record, we decline to award fees.

CONCLUSION

¶17 We affirm the superior court's rulings and will award Father 

his costs incurred in this appeal upon his compliance with Arizona Rule of 

Civil Appellate Procedure 21.