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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

HANNAH MARIE ZUNIGA, 

Petitioner/Appellee,

v.

JOSHUA DAVID LEHI ZUNIGA, 

Respondent/Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CV 23-0125 FC

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. FC2021-095422

The Honorable Quintin H. Cushner, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Genesis Legal Group, Gilbert

By Kevin Jensen

Counsel for Respondent/Appellant

Rowley Law Group, PLLC, Mesa

By Scott R. Rowley

Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee

FILED 1-25-2024
ZUNIGA v. ZUNIGA

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie and Judge Cynthia J. Bailey joined.

C R U Z, Judge:

¶1 Joshua Zuniga (“Father”) appeals from the dissolution decree 

ending his marriage to Hannah Zuniga (“Mother”). For the following 

reasons, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In November 2021, Mother filed a petition for dissolution of 

marriage. In January 2022, the superior court issued temporary orders 

awarding Mother temporary spousal maintenance. Before trial, Father 

made post-petition payments on Mother’s car loan and community credit 

cards. Additionally, Mother withdrew money from the parties’ joint bank 

account and spent money from the HSA account.

¶3 Father requested reimbursement for $5,953.50 paid to 

Mother’s car loan and car insurance, $5,003 for money Mother withdrew 

from the joint bank account, $3,000 for money Mother used from the HSA 

account, and reimbursement for payments Father made to the community 

credit cards. In December 2022, the superior court held a hearing on all 

issues, including Father’s reimbursement claims.

¶4 The superior court denied all of Father’s reimbursement 

claims. Alternatively, the superior court awarded the post-petition 

payments to the car loan and withdrawal of money from the joint bank 

account as retroactive temporary spousal maintenance. 

¶5 Father timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 

Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 12-2101(A)(1). 

DISCUSSION

¶6 We review the equitable distribution of property for an abuse 

of discretion. Hoobler v. Hoobler, 254 Ariz. 130, 138, ¶ 13 (App. 2022). We 

review a spousal maintenance award for an abuse of discretion. Huey v. 

Huey, 253 Ariz. 560, 562, ¶ 6 (App. 2022). We do not reweigh evidence but 
ZUNIGA v. ZUNIGA

Decision of the Court

3

defer to the court’s credibility determinations and the weight given to 

conflicting evidence. Lehn v. Al-Thanayyan, 246 Ariz. 277, 284, ¶ 20 (App. 

2019). “We view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the 

superior court’s ruling.” Ferrill v. Ferrill, 253 Ariz. 393, 396, ¶ 8 (App. 2022).

I. Evidence for Reimbursement Claims

¶7 Post-petition payments made with sole and separate property 

are not presumed to be gifts and should be accounted for in the equitable 

distribution of the property. Bobrow v. Bobrow, 241 Ariz. 592, 596-97, ¶¶ 19-

20 (App. 2017).

¶8 Father argues the superior court abused its discretion when it 

denied his reimbursement claims because it required a “heightened level of 

evidence.” The superior court denied Father’s reimbursement claim for a 

$5,003 post-petition withdrawal by Mother from the parties’ joint bank 

account because the documentation Father presented did not support that 

Mother had withdrawn $5,003. The superior court was “not able to identify 

$5,003 in non-duplicative expenses.” The document Father provided 

includes duplicative expenses that do not total $5,003. Further, the superior 

court could not determine if the expenses represented community 

obligations or if the payments could be traced to community funds. Father 

testified the funds Mother used were his sole and separate property. But 

there was no other evidence on whether the expenses represented 

community obligations or if the funds could be traced to community funds. 

The superior court did not abuse its discretion when it could not find 

credible evidence to support Father’s reimbursement claim for money 

withdrawn from the joint bank account by Mother and denied that claim.

¶9 The superior court denied Father’s reimbursement claim for 

the HSA account because there was also insufficient evidence to support it. 

No credible evidence was presented regarding Mother’s withdrawal of 

funds from the HSA account, only Father’s testimony. The superior court 

did not abuse its discretion when it denied Father’s HSA account 

reimbursement claim. 

¶10 Father argues the superior court abused its discretion when it 

denied reimbursement of post-petition payments because Mother did not 

deny Father made the payments. But Mother’s agreement that Father made 

post-petition payments does not constitute an agreement that such funds 

came from his separate funds or to their ultimate allocation in the equitable 

distribution of property. Mother testified that she could not make the postpetition payments due to her financial situation, and Father withheld 
ZUNIGA v. ZUNIGA

Decision of the Court

4

community funds from her. And the superior court found that “[d]uring 

part of the time that Father was making payments related to the vehicle, 

Mother was not receiving spousal maintenance.” The superior court did 

not abuse its discretion when it determined that granting Father’s 

reimbursement claims for the car loan and community credit cards would 

not result in an equitable distribution of property. 

¶11 To the extent Father argues the superior court abused its 

discretion in placing time restrictions on the parties, we disagree. A court 

may impose reasonable time limits in advance of a proceeding. Volk v. 

Brame, 235 Ariz. 462, 468, ¶ 20 (App. 2014). If “it becomes apparent that the 

court lacks sufficient time to receive adequate testimony, then the court 

must allow reasonable additional time or continue the hearing to permit it 

to perform its essential tasks.” Id. at 468, ¶ 21. In this case, the superior 

court allowed Father extra time and did not enforce strict time limits. 

Additionally, Father did not request more time during the trial. Therefore, 

the superior court did not abuse its discretion by placing time restrictions 

on the parties.

II. Retroactive Spousal Maintenance 

¶12 Post-petition payments are not presumed to be gifts and must 

be considered in the equitable distribution of property. Bobrow, 241 Ariz. at 

596-97, ¶¶ 19-20. “The superior court may account for such payments in a 

variety of ways to achieve an equitable property division.” Huey, 253 Ariz. 

at 565, ¶ 18. The superior court may retroactively grant temporary spousal 

maintenance. Barron v. Barron, 246 Ariz. 580, 591, ¶ 43 (App. 2018), vacated 

in part on other grounds, 246 Ariz. 449, 452, ¶ 21 (2019). 

¶13 Father argues the superior court abused its discretion when it 

awarded the post-petition payments as temporary spousal maintenance 

because the superior court did not first engage in a statutorily-guided 

spousal maintenance analysis, and it concluded she was entitled to no 

additional spousal maintenance otherwise. In the final decree, the superior 

court found Mother self-sufficient and capable of supporting herself. But 

the superior court recognized that Mother’s circumstances at the temporary 

orders stage were different from her circumstances at the end of the 

litigation, where she was ultimately awarded her share of Father’s 

retirement funds, stock, more than $10,000 in a community lien on a 

condominium and half of the parties’ 2021 tax refund, and child support, 

while Father was assuming most of the community debts.
ZUNIGA v. ZUNIGA

Decision of the Court

5

¶14 Regarding the car loan payments, the superior court found 

“credible evidence that Mother would not have been able to share the 

expense at issue during the pertinent timeframe.” Likewise, the superior 

court found reimbursing Father for the money Mother withdrew from the 

joint bank account would not be an equitable division of property. The 

superior court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded these payments 

as retroactive temporary spousal maintenance. 

III. Attorneys’ Fees

¶15 Mother requests attorneys’ fees pursuant to ARCAP 21. We 

deny her request for fees under ARCAP 21 because she did not cite a statute, 

rule, or other substantive authority for her request. See ARCAP 21(a)(2).

CONCLUSION

¶16 We affirm.