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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

GARY T. STRINGER, Respondent/Appellant, 

v.

CHRISTINA J. STRINGER, Petitioner/Appellee. 

No. 1 CA-CV 16-0425 FC 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. FC2013-006564 

The Honorable Katherine M. Cooper, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Udall Shumway PLC, Mesa

By Joel E. Sannes and Charles W. Brown, Jr. 

Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant

DAVIS FAAS BLASE, PLLC, Scottsdale

By Aaron T. Blase 

Counsel for Defendant/Appellee

FILED 12-7-2017
STRINGER V. STRINGER

Decision of the Court

2 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Peter B. Swann and Judge Maurice Portley1 joined.

M c M U R D I E, Judge:

¶1 Gary T. Stringer (“Father”) appeals the superior court’s order 

awarding attorney’s fees and costs to Christina J. Stringer (“Mother”) after 

Father petitioned to modify his parenting time for the parties’ two children. 

For the following reasons, we affirm. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 After a 20-year marriage, Father and Mother divorced in 2014. 

Under the original consent decree, Father and Mother agreed to joint legal 

decision making and equal parenting time of their two children. In October 

2014, Father voluntarily relinquished his in-person parenting time. In July 

2015, Father petitioned to modify his parenting time and reinstate the terms 

of the original decree. Mother subsequently petitioned to modify legal 

decision-making authority, seeking sole legal decision-making authority. 

Father and Mother both requested an award of attorney’s fees and costs

pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 25-324.

¶3 After a hearing (“March 2016 hearing”), the superior court 

awarded sole legal decision-making authority to Mother and amended 

Father’s parenting time to one night per week for 2.5 hours. The superior 

court awarded Mother her attorney’s fees and costs, finding a substantial 

disparity in financial resources existed between Father and Mother, and 

that Father acted unreasonably in the litigation. 

¶4 Although not directly at issue in this appeal, after filing the 

petitions related to parenting time and legal-decision making authority, 

Father also petitioned the court to modify his child support obligation. 

After a hearing on May 2, 2017 (“May 2017 hearing”), the superior court: (1)

 

1 The Honorable Maurice Portley, retired Judge of the Court of 

Appeals, Division One, has been authorized to sit in this matter pursuant 

to Article VI, Section 3, of the Arizona Constitution. 
STRINGER V. STRINGER

Decision of the Court

3 

ordered Father to pay $5000 per month in child support, an upward 

deviation from the Child Support Guidelines; (2) ordered Father to pay

$8000 per month in spousal maintenance; and (3) again awarded Wife 

attorney’s fees and costs.

¶5 Father timely appealed the superior court’s order awarding 

Wife attorney’s fees and costs following the March 2016 hearing. We have 

jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1) and -2101(A)(1).

DISCUSSION 

A. The Superior Court Did Not Err by Awarding Mother Attorney’s 

Fees and Costs. 

¶6 Father argues the superior court erred by awarding Mother

attorney’s fees without evidence in the record of the parties’ financial 

resources. We review a superior court’s award of attorney’s fees under 

A.R.S. § 25-324(A) for an abuse of discretion. Mangan v. Mangan, 227 Ariz. 

346, 352, ¶ 26 (App. 2011). Under § 25-324(A): 

The court from time to time, after considering the financial 

resources of both parties and the reasonableness of the 

positions each party has taken throughout the proceedings, 

may order a party to pay a reasonable amount to the other 

party for the costs and expenses of maintaining or defending 

[a domestic relations] proceeding.

¶7 In awarding Mother her attorney’s fees and costs, the superior 

court found a financial disparity existed between the parties because Father

earned over $350,000 per year, while Mother’s sole source of income was 

spousal support. The superior court based its finding on Mother’s pretrial 

statement. Mother’s separate pretrial statement claimed Father “earns well 

over $350,000 annually” and that her “only source of income is the spousal 

support she receives from Father.” Her pretrial statement also alleged 

Father’s “behavior throughout this litigation has been unreasonable and 

forced Mother to incur fees to respond to his repetitious allegations.” 

¶8 Although Father argued below that Mother was not entitled 

to an attorney’s fees award, he never objected to Mother’s assertion that his 

income exceeded $350,000 per year. Father filed a separate pretrial 

statement one day before the scheduled hearing. Mother moved to preclude 

Father’s pretrial statement and any witnesses, exhibits, or evidence listed in 

it because she received the pretrial statement less than one day before the 

hearing. The court ruled: 
STRINGER V. STRINGER

Decision of the Court

4 

The pre-trial statements are not evidence. They are offered to 

the Court pursuant to the rules as a guide. They’re also to 

define the issues for the trial. They are not evidence . . . I have 

counsel all the time, and parties come in and gloss over stuff, 

thinking that what they put in their pre-trial statement is 

going to be something the Court can consider as evidence, 

and it’s not. 

¶9 Father argues the superior court erred by then relying solely 

on the statement in Mother’s pretrial statement, without any other evidence 

of Father’s income, the “resource disparity between the parties,” or “the 

ratio of the fees owed to the assets and/or income of each party.” In 

awarding attorney’s fees and costs under § 25-324, the superior court “may 

look to a number of factors, none of which alone is dispositive. Among such 

factors are the relative financial disparity between the parties, the ability of 

the parties to pay the fees, the ratio of fees owed to assets owned, and ‘other 

similar matters.’” In re Marriage of Williams, 219 Ariz. 546, 550, ¶ 15 (App. 

2008). We will not reverse a superior court’s award of attorney’s fees if there 

is any reasonable basis for it. In re Marriage of Gibbs, 227 Ariz. 403, 410, ¶ 20 

(App. 2011). 

¶10 Father never objected to Mother’s assertion, made in her 

pretrial statement and in other pleadings, that he earned $350,000 per year. 

Nor did Father provide any other evidence regarding his income or 

financial information at or prior to the hearing. The uncontested record 

before the superior court, at the time of the hearing on the parties’ original 

petitions, showed Father’s income exceeded $350,000 per year and that 

Mother’s primary source of income was spousal support. 

¶11 On April 1, 2016, the court filed its order regarding legal 

decision making and parenting time, and awarding Mother attorney’s fees 

after the filing of an affidavit pursuant to Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, 

Inc., 138 Ariz. 183 (1983). On the same day that the court filed its order, 

Father filed a petition to modify his child support obligation.2 With that 

petition, Father filed an affidavit of financial information. On April 11, 2016, 

Mother filed an affidavit of financial information. On May 2, 2016, Mother 

submitted her China Doll affidavit along with her application for fees under 

 

2 This court takes judicial notice of the superior court’s records. City of 

Phoenix v. Superior Court (Rosen), 110 Ariz. 155, 158 (1973). 
STRINGER V. STRINGER

Decision of the Court

5 

the April 1, order.3 Father did not respond to the application for attorney’s 

fees and the court entered the attorney’s fees judgment on May 27, 2016. 

The superior court conducted a hearing on Father’s petition to modify his 

child support obligation on May 2, 2017. After that hearing, the superior 

court made detailed findings regarding Father’s income. The court found

(1) Father’s income was nearly $65,000 per month, and (2) Father’s spending 

patterns included a $287,289 cash down payment on a house, membership 

payments to a country club and the Arabian Horse Association, a $51,000 

credit card payment, and several hundred thousand dollars’ worth of 

personal expenditures, proving he “lives a lifestyle over and above [his 

claimed] $150,000 income.” The court also found Mother’s income was 

$3000 per month, based on her affidavit of financial information and a profit 

and loss statement for her business. 

¶12 Even if we were to agree with Father that the evidence was 

insufficient at the time of the March 2016 hearing to award Mother 

attorney’s fees, unless Father can show prejudice we will not disturb the 

superior court’s attorney’s fees award. See Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 86 (“[N]o 

error or defect in any ruling or order or in anything done or omitted by the 

court . . . is ground . . . for vacating, modifying or otherwise disturbing a 

judgment or order, unless refusal to take such action appears to the court 

inconsistent with substantial justice.”). The court’s findings after the May 

2017 hearing show a substantial financial disparity exists between Father 

and Mother. Accordingly, Father cannot show prejudice. 

¶13 The superior court also found Father acted unreasonably 

throughout the litigation by: (1) his decision to stop parenting and the 

subsequent need for an interventionist; (2) his refusal to participate in TASC 

testing and reunification therapy; and (3) his subpoena for Mother’s 

“therapy records which ultimately proved wholly unrelated to Father’s 

request to reinstate his parenting time.” In awarding attorney’s fees under 

§ 25-324, a court must consider both the financial resources of the parties 

and the reasonableness of their positions; “nevertheless, ‘an applicant need 

not show both a financial disparity and an unreasonable opponent in order 

to qualify for consideration for an award.’“ Mangan, 227 Ariz. at 353, ¶ 27, 

n.13 (upholding an award of Father’s attorney’s fees where Father earned 

significantly more income than Mother, but where Mother took 

unreasonable positions in the litigation). Based on the evidence of the 

financial disparity between Father and Mother and the unreasonableness of 

 

3 In resolving a contempt petition, the court awarded Mother 

additional attorney’s fees on April 28, 2016. 
STRINGER V. STRINGER

Decision of the Court

6 

Father’s positions, the superior court did not err by awarding Mother her

attorney’s fees and costs. 

¶14 Father also argues the superior court erred by awarding 

Mother attorney’s fees and costs because she failed to comply with Arizona 

Rule of Family Law Procedure 91(S). Under Rule 91(S), “[i]n any postdecree/post-judgment proceeding in which an award of attorneys’ fees, 

costs, and expenses is an issue, both parties shall file a completed Affidavit 

of Financial Information” and serve the affidavit on the opposing party.

Father contends Mother never served him with an affidavit of financial 

information in the modification proceeding he initiated. Father failed to 

raise this argument below, despite contesting Mother’s requests for 

attorney’s fees multiple times. Arguments not raised below are generally 

waived on appeal. Continental Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading 

& Utilities, LLC, 227 Ariz. 382, 386, ¶ 12 (App. 2011). Father has therefore 

waived this argument on appeal. Further, the record shows Mother filed an 

affidavit of financial information on September 17, 2015, and again on April 

11, 2016. Although Mother did not attach an affidavit when she first 

requested attorney’s fees on August 19, 2015, the superior court had both 

affidavits before it when it awarded her attorney’s fees and costs. Thus, the 

superior court did not err by awarding Mother attorney’s fees and costs, 

despite Mother not filing an affidavit of financial information with her 

initial request for attorney’s fees. 

B. There is No Basis to Award Father Fees and Costs on Appeal. 

¶15 Father requests an award of fees and costs on appeal. After 

considering the disparity of financial resources of the parties and the

frivolous position taken by Father, we decline to award Father fees and 

costs. We note that Mother did not request fees and costs on appeal. 

CONCLUSION

¶16 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the superior court’s 

award of Mother’s attorney’s fees and costs.