NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE

LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

In re the Marriage of: 

PATRICIA A. VOGUE, Petitioner/Appellee,

v.

REZA MALEKNIA, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CV 13-0735

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. FC2011-001674, FN2011-001498 (Consolidated)

The Honorable Joseph P. Mikitish, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Becker Zarling & Moye Law, Avondale

By Gina M. Becker-Zarling

Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee

Tiffany & Bosco, P.A., Phoenix

By Leonard J. Mark, May Lu, Natalya Ter-Grigoryan 

Counsel for Respondent/Appellant
VOGUE v. MALEKNIA

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

Presiding Judge Patricia K. Norris and Judge John C. Gemmill joined.

W I N T H R O P, Judge:

¶1 Reza Maleknia (“Husband”) challenges a spousal 

maintenance order in the Decree dissolving his marriage to Patricia Vogue 

(“Wife”). He contends the family court abused its discretion by awarding 

Wife $3000 in monthly spousal maintenance until her death or remarriage. 

Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the award.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Husband and Wife married in 2004. At the beginning of their 

marriage, Husband was a medical resident and Wife was a full-time 

account executive for a mortgage company. When Wife served the petition 

for dissolution seven years later, Husband was a practicing physician and 

Wife was struggling with multiple sclerosis and had retired due to 

disability. One of the family court’s temporary orders awarded Wife $3000 

in monthly spousal maintenance.

¶3 Both parties testified at trial and submitted exhibits. They 

also entered an Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure (“Rule”) 69 

agreement that resolved most issues but did not address spousal 

maintenance. Although Husband conceded Wife would never be able to 

return to work and was entitled to some spousal maintenance, he and Wife 

differed as to its appropriate amount and duration.

¶4 The family court found Wife qualified for spousal 

maintenance under Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 25-

319(A)(1) and (2) (2007). After considering and making findings on all 

factors in A.R.S. § 25-319(B), the court ordered Husband to pay Wife $3000

in monthly spousal maintenance until her death or remarriage. The court

also held Wife was entitled to recover one-half of her attorneys’ fees 

pursuant to A.R.S. § 25-324(A) (Supp. 2014).

¶5 The court’s Decree, which did not specify the amount of 

attorneys’ fees, contained Rule 78(B) language certifying it was final and 
VOGUE v. MALEKNIA

Decision of the Court

3

appealable. Husband appealed from the Decree, and we have jurisdiction 

pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(1) (Supp. 2014).

ANALYSIS

 I. Standards of Review

¶6 Husband challenges the amount and duration of the spousal 

maintenance award. A family court retains “substantial discretion” to 

determine the amount and duration of spousal maintenance under A.R.S.

§ 25-319(B). Rainwater v. Rainwater, 177 Ariz. 500, 502, 869 P.2d 176, 178 

(App. 1993). We will not disturb its rulings absent an abuse of discretion.

In re Marriage of Berger, 140 Ariz. 156, 167, 680 P.2d 1217, 1228 (App. 1983). 

A court abuses its discretion when it commits an error of law in reaching a 

discretionary decision, reaches a conclusion without considering the 

evidence, commits another substantial error of law, or makes a finding

lacking substantial evidentiary support. Flying Diamond Airpark, L.L.C. v. 

Meienberg, 215 Ariz. 44, 50, ¶ 27, 156 P.3d 1149, 1155 (App. 2007). We will 

not set aside findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Berger, 140 

Ariz. at 161, 680 P.2d at 1222.

¶7 Because neither party requested findings of fact and 

conclusions of law pursuant to Rule 82(A), “we are constrained by the 

presumption that the Superior Court ‘found every fact necessary to support 

the judgment, and such presumptive findings must be sustained if the 

evidence on any reasonable construction justified it.’” Neal v. Neal, 116 Ariz. 

590, 592, 570 P.2d 758, 760 (1977) (citations omitted). Likewise, we view the 

evidence in the light most favorable to Wife, and will affirm if reasonable 

evidence supports the award. See Cullum v. Cullum, 215 Ariz. 352, 354-55, 

¶¶ 9, 13, 160 P.3d 231, 233-34 (App. 2007) (viewing the evidence in the light 

most favorable to the wife and affirming the spousal maintenance award 

without requiring her to first “use up” her property); Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, 

193 Ariz. 343, 348, ¶ 14, 972 P.2d 676, 681 (App. 1998) (affirming lifetime 

spousal maintenance to a wife whose age and skill level precluded her from 

gaining employment adequate to support herself).

 II. The Monthly Award of $3000 in Indefinite Spousal Maintenance

A. Reasonable Evidence Supports the Amount Awarded.

¶8 The family court determines the amount of spousal 

maintenance after balancing all relevant factors, including those 

enumerated in A.R.S. § 25-319(B). The court makes this evaluation on a 

case-by-case basis in light of the evidence presented, recognizing that some 
VOGUE v. MALEKNIA

Decision of the Court

4

of the factors may not apply. Rainwater, 177 Ariz. at 502, 869 P.2d at 178.

Husband argues Wife’s claimed monthly expenses totaling $6103 were 

unreasonable and the $3000 maintenance award was unsupported by the 

trial evidence. We disagree.

¶9 Distilled to its essence, Husband’s argument is that Wife is not 

entitled to a $3000 award which, combined with her other income, exceeds 

her “reasonable needs” of $3688 by approximately $2000. Our duty on 

review does not include re-weighing conflicting evidence; instead, we defer 

to the family court’s resolution of such evidence and consider only whether 

reasonable evidence supports the family court’s decision. Hurd v. Hurd, 223 

Ariz. 48, 52, ¶ 16, 219 P.3d 258, 262 (App. 2009); accord Gutierrez, 193 Ariz. 

at 347-48, ¶ 13, 972 P.2d at 680-81; Hamilton v. Municipal Court, 163 Ariz. 374, 

378, 788 P.2d 107, 111 (App. 1989). Assessing the credibility of witnesses is 

also a task committed to the family court, see Gutierrez, 193 Ariz. at 347-48, 

¶ 13, 972 P.2d at 680-81, and that court need not believe even the 

uncontradicted testimony of an interested witness. See In re Estate of 

Wainola, 79 Ariz. 342, 346, 289 P.2d 692, 695 (1955); accord Hamilton, 163 Ariz. 

at 377, 788 P.2d at 110.

¶10 Husband, a physician, currently earns approximately $20,000

per month, and before her illness, Wife earned approximately $8000 to 

$9000 per month as a self-described “workaholic” mortgage executive. See

generally A.R.S. § 25-319(B)(4)-(5), (9). Wife is now unable to work and 

facing substantial continuing medical bills. See A.R.S. § 25-319(B)(3), (9). 

Although Husband disputes the family court’s characterization of their

marital lifestyle as “elaborate,” the parties’ standard of living indisputably

allowed them to maintain two separate apartments, in addition to a house, 

during the marriage. See A.R.S. § 25-319(B)(1). Also, notwithstanding their 

high earnings, the parties had no savings or retirement assets, a fact that 

would be consistent with a high rate of spending. See id.

¶11 Wife supported Husband early in the nine-year (by the time 

of trial) marriage by paying the mortgage and assisting him with obtaining 

a “green card.” See A.R.S. § 25-319(B)(2), (6). Husband did not dispute he 

subsequently obtained greater comparative resources and earning ability 

than Wife. His $20,000 monthly income substantially exceeds the $3000 per 

month awarded to Wife. See A.R.S. § 25-319(B)(4)-(5). Husband testified 

his monthly expenses totaled approximately $7400, which meant he still 

had $9600 left after paying $3000 in spousal support. At trial, Husband 

alluded to other expenses, such as malpractice insurance, continuing 

education, and billing expenses, but he never quantified the amounts.
VOGUE v. MALEKNIA

Decision of the Court

5

¶12 Notwithstanding this evidence, Husband challenged Wife’s 

claimed monthly expenses of $6103 and intimated she would qualify for 

more public assistance if the family court awarded less spousal 

maintenance. Husband argues that, in view of the lack of evidentiary 

support for the family court’s award, this court should vacate the ruling

and award Wife $1000 per month for up to two years or remand the case

for a new determination.

¶13 The Decree provides no specific calculation or explanation for 

the $3000 award, nor does it attempt to quantify Wife’s reasonable 

expenses; however, A.R.S. § 25-319(B) does not require express findings on 

the factors to be considered in assessing the award’s amount. See Elliott v. 

Elliott, 165 Ariz. 128, 131 n.1, 796 P.2d 930, 933 n.1 (App. 1990). And, given 

the parties’ failure to request findings of fact and conclusions of law under 

Rule 82(A), we are constrained to assume the family court found every fact 

necessary to support its $3000 award. See Neal, 116 Ariz. at 592, 570 P.2d at 

760. Husband, who did not object to the adequacy of the express findings

in the family court, focuses his appellate arguments on whether substantial 

evidence supports the award and any implicit findings.

¶14 The record contains detailed testimony concerning Wife’s 

expenses. Wife testified she was receiving $1583 per month from Social 

Security and $1662 from private disability insurance benefits ($2162 minus 

a $500 monthly payment toward the balance owed to her disability attorney 

for the next five years). Also, Wife’s disabled brother was paying her $400 

per month for room and board. Wife spent $1295 per month in condo rent, 

and had expenses for food, medical co-payments, and approximately 

twelve different medications. Wife testified she was struggling to keep up 

with her bills and had postponed urgent dental work because she lacked 

funds.

¶15 Husband claimed, however, that if Wife received only $1000 

in monthly spousal maintenance, she would likely qualify for medical 

coverage through Medicare, which would cover some of her more 

expensive medicines like Copaxone. After Wife started receiving $3000 in 

spousal maintenance under the temporary orders, her expenses for 

Copaxone, other medicines, and supplies totaled $505 per month. Wife’s

testimony, however, indicated Husband’s proposed “strategy” would 

likely not work because her physicians were switching her from Copaxone 

to Tecfidera, a medication with fewer side effects. Tecfidera alone would 

cost Wife approximately $1500 for two months starting in January or 

February 2014, but ultimately would average out to approximately $400 per 

month. More importantly, Wife had already inquired about receiving 
VOGUE v. MALEKNIA

Decision of the Court

6

medical insurance coverage for the new medicine but “there’s not the same 

kind of support” as she had received for Copaxone. Husband did not 

testify otherwise. Thus, the evidence reasonably supported the family 

court’s conclusions that it was unclear whether Wife would continue to 

receive the same level of public assistance and whether or when her private 

disability insurance payments would end.

¶16 Husband also argued Wife could reduce her non-medical 

expenses forrent, cell phone service, and gasoline, among otheritems. Wife 

disputed the feasibility of such adjustments for rent and gas and did not 

admit any of the adjustments were reasonable in her case. The family court 

made no findings that Husband’s suggested adjustments were reasonable, 

and we defer to its resolution of this conflicting evidence concerning Wife’s 

expenses and needs.

1 See Gutierrez, 193 Ariz. at 347-48, ¶ 13, 972 P.2d at 680-

81. Therefore, notwithstanding Husband’s argument that Wife could and 

should reduce her expenses by almost forty percent, we affirm the family 

court’s $3000 spousal maintenance award. The relevant standard of living 

for a spousal maintenance award is not a “minimum subsistence level.” 

Rainwater, 177 Ariz. at 503, 869 P.2d at 179.

¶17 Finally, Husband argues the $3000 award, combined with 

Wife’s monthly income, exceeds her claimed monthly needs by 

approximately $500.2 But Wife counters she will need that amount to 

 

1 Husband also argued Wife improperly claimed two expenses – an 

AARP insurance premium and monthly dental work payments - in her 

affidavit of financial information. Wife listed $250 for an AARP insurance 

premium even though she was not yet paying for that insurance, and will

not qualify for such coverage until 2016. Wife testified she will purchase 

AARP insurance when she turns fifty years of age because, otherwise, her 

continuing medical expenses will be “through the roof.” The family court 

may have allotted this amount toward Wife’s anticipated expense when she 

applies for supplemental Medicare insurance in the near future. With 

respect to the dental work, Wife was entitled to claim $665 per month for 

this postponed expense, and in any event, the family court did not make 

findings as to whether these specific line items were reasonable and need 

be applied.

2 Husband charges that the family court’s award was punishment for 

his spousal maintenance arrearages on the temporary orders. This is 

speculation. Wife’s attorney reminded the family court of its prior 

admonishment of Husband to pay support, but Husband never objected. 
VOGUE v. MALEKNIA

Decision of the Court

7

defray income taxes on her spousal maintenance and build up savings for 

her needs after age sixty-five, when her private disability benefits will 

terminate. These expenses support the award.

¶18 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Wife, we 

hold the family court did not abuse its discretion in ordering spousal 

maintenance of $3000 per month. Wife’s progressing disease, significant

medical expenses, lack of employability, and other statutory factors under 

A.R.S. § 25-319(B) all support the award. See Schroeder v. Schroeder, 161 Ariz. 

316, 323, 778 P.2d 1212, 1219 (1989) (affirming an award of spousal 

maintenance for an indefinite term to a wife who had found only nonlucrative work and whose expenses had increased to include chemotherapy 

treatment for cancer).

B. Reasonable Evidence Supports the Award’s Duration.

¶19 Husband also contends Wife was not entitled to receive 

spousal maintenance indefinitely and an award of no more than two years 

is sufficient to allow her to transition to a Medicare insurance program. A 

goal of spousal maintenance is to support the receiving spouse’s transition 

to independence, if possible. Rainwater, 177 Ariz. at 503, 869 P.2d at 179. 

The family court has discretion to award indefinite maintenance, however,

when it appears from the evidence that independence is unlikely to ever be 

achieved. See id. at 505, 869 P.2d at 181. On this record, the family court 

reasonably found Wife qualified for such an award. See Schroeder, 161 Ariz. 

at 323, 778 P.2d at 1219; Leathers v. Leathers, 216 Ariz. 374, 377, ¶ 12, 166 P.3d 

929, 932 (App. 2007) (upholding spousal maintenance for an indefinite term 

in view of the wife’s ongoing health concerns and other § 25-319(B) factors).

Although Husband argues the indefinite award was inconsistent with the 

nature and “quality” of the marriage, and the wording of A.R.S. § 25-319(B) 

allows for the consideration of factors other than those enumerated in the 

 

Consequently, Husband has waived the issue. See Romero v. Sw. Ambulance, 

211 Ariz. 200, 203-04, ¶¶ 6-7, 119 P.3d 467, 470-71 (App. 2005).

Equally unavailing is Husband’s argument that he never conceded 

an ability to pay spousal maintenance under A.R.S. § 25-319(B)(4). Even if 

true, other record evidence supported the family court’s finding that 

Husband could pay the award. The $3000 award would be, as Wife argued, 

a “15 percent . . . hit” on Husband’s income. Husband did not disagree with 

this characterization. There is no record support indicating the family court 

considered Husband’s ability to pay a dispositive factor or misperceived 

the evidence.
VOGUE v. MALEKNIA

Decision of the Court

8

statute, he cites no legal authority concerning the relevance of that factor. 

We consequently find this argument unavailing. See generally Ness v. W. 

Sec. Life Ins. Co., 174 Ariz. 497, 503, 851 P.2d 122, 128 (App. 1992); see also

ARCAP 13(a)(6) (requiring the appellant to support contentions with 

citations to legal authorities).

 III. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs on Appeal

¶20 Both parties have requested attorneys’ fees on appeal – Wife 

pursuant to A.R.S. § 25-324 and Husband pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-349 (Supp. 

2014). Under A.R.S. § 25-324(A) and (C), we have discretion to award costs 

and expenses – including attorneys’ fees - after considering the parties’ 

financial resources and the reasonableness of their positions throughout the 

litigation. In assessing resources, a court should consider relevant factors, 

such as the degree of resource disparity between the parties, their ability to 

pay fees, the ratio of fees owed to the assets and/or income of each party, 

and similar matters. Magee v. Magee, 206 Ariz. 589, 592-93, ¶¶ 17-18, 81 P.3d 

1048, 1051-52 (App. 2004). This court determines the reasonableness of the 

parties’ positions under an objective standard. In re Marriage of Williams, 

219 Ariz. 546, 548-49, ¶¶ 10-12, 200 P.3d 1043, 1045-46 (App. 2008).

¶21 We have no reason to believe Wife’s financial or other 

circumstances have improved, and Husband has unreasonably raised 

arguments on appeal he had not preserved in the family court. 

Accordingly, in the exercise of our discretion, we award Wife her taxable 

costs and an amount of reasonable attorneys’ fees on appeal pursuant to 

A.R.S. § 25-324(A). This award is contingent upon Wife’s compliance with 

ARCAP 21. Finding no basis for Husband’s request for an award of 

attorneys’ fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-349, we deny that request.
VOGUE v. MALEKNIA

Decision of the Court

9

CONCLUSION

¶22 Based on the foregoing analysis, we affirm the family court’s 

spousal maintenance award.