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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE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 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

In re the Marriage of: SOILA ANN VASQUEZ

- ARAIZA
, Petitioner /Appell ee ,

v.

JOSE LOPEZ GURROLA
, Respondent /Appell ant

.
No. 1 CA

- CV 13

- 0716 FC

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. FN 2011

- 091360 The Honorable Boyd W. Dunn
, Judge Retired

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Jose Lopez Gurrol a Respondent

/Appellant

Soila Ann Vasquez

- Araiza Petitioner /AppelleeVASQUEZ

- AR AIZA v. GURROLA Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani and Judge Maurice Portley joined.

W I N T H R O P , Judge:

¶1 Jose Lopez Gurrola (“Husband”) appeals the family court’s decree of dissolution awarding certain real property t o Soila V asquez

Ar aiza (“Wife”). Husband does not contest the family court’s award of the parties’ business to Wife , or the overall distribution of the parties’ personal property and community debts. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCED URAL HISTORY

¶2 After approximately twenty

- nine years of marriage, Wife served a petition for dissolution on Husband in April 2011

. The parties initially attempted to negotiate a settlement regarding their personal and real property
, and Husband ultimately filed a “Notice of Settlement and Motion to Vacate Trial.” The family court vacated th e trial setting and ordered the parties to submit their settlemen t documents by April 11, 2013. No settlement agreement was ever filed. After re taining new counsel, W ife filed a “Motion for Contempt, Sanctions, Attorney’s Fees, and Request for Expedited Hearing,” alleging that Husband fraudulently induced Wi fe into a settlement and dissipated marital assets. Wife further contended Husband had fai led to provide any disclosures or financial information as ordered by the court, and Wife had negotiated a settlement based solely
up on assurances made by Husband. Wife also alleged Husband interfered with the oper ations of the family business

. ¶3 Without ru ling on Wife’s motion, t he family court set a new trial date for July 10, 2013
, and ordered that all discovery and disclosure be complete d by June 10, 2013. Wife filed her disclosure statement on June 7, 2013. Husband filed his “Supplemental Rule 49 Stat ement” on July 3, 2013. During trial, the parties agreed : (1) neither party would receive spousal maintenance; (2) Wife was entitled to ownership of the family business; (3) Wife would receive a residence on Millett in Mesa ; and (4) b oth Husband and Wife would receive the vehi cles in his or her possession. Although b oth parties testified during trial
, the record on appeal does not include transcripts of the proceedings

.VASQUEZ

- AR AIZA v. GURROLA Decision of the Court

3 ¶4 The family court dissolved the parties’ marriage on August 23, 2013. T he court awarde d Wife the marital residence on Mesa Drive in Mesa and the residence on Millett, and Husband was awarded a residence on Winterhaven in Mesa

. The court ordered that a 4

- p lex prop erty on Horne Street in Mesa be sold and the proceeds divided, with Husband

re quired to reimburse Wife $31,750.35 from his share for improper expenditures, including (1) $19,409.35 that Husband spent with out agreement or authorization after the dissolution petition was filed, and (2) $12,341.00 Husband owed t o the family business

. The court also ordered Husband to pay Wife ha lf of the proceeds of Husband’s unauthorized sale of the parties’ personal property. T he family court also found Husband had acted unreasonably during the course of the litigation and, pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S

. ”) section 25

- 324, 1 awarded Wife her attorneys’ fees and costs.

¶5 Husband filed a motion for new trial on September 9, 2013, which the family court denied. Husban d timely appealed. W e have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 12

- 2101( A)( 1 )

.
ANALYSIS

¶6 Husband argues the family court ’s app ortion ment of real property was unfair. In addition, Husband asserts Wife should have been bound by the pre trial settlement agreement. Where a family court acts equitably, we will not disturb its apportionment of community property absent an abuse of discretion. Cockrill v. Cockrill , 139 Ariz. 72, 74

- 75, 676 P.2d 1130, 11 32

- 33 (App. 1983). As the appellant , Husband had a duty to produce the entire re cord, including providing necessary transcripts

. S ee ARCAP 11(b) . H e failed to do so , and t his court will thus assume the missing record supports the family court’s findings. See B aker v. Baker , 183 Ariz. 70, 73, 900 P.2d 764, 767 (App. 1995) ; see also Bliss v. Treece , 134 Ariz. 516, 519, 658 P.2d 169, 172 (1983) (“ Where the record is incomplete, a reviewing court must assume any evidence not available on appeal supported the trial court’s action.” ). In light of that assumption, we find no

erro r in the family court’s distribution of the community property.

¶7 The record before us does not include complete information regarding encumbrances on the real property allocated to the parties. Without that information, we cannot say that the family court’s division of real property was inequitable. And w ithout a transcript from the trial, we

1 We cite the current version of the statutes if no revisions material to our decision have occurred since the relevant dates.VASQUEZ

- AR AIZA v. GURROLA Decision of the Court

4 cannot assess whether the family court otherwise failed to consider evidence, improperly admitted evidence, or violat ed court rules

. Based on this record, we find no abuse of discretion, as the limited record supports the family court’s division of the community property

. ¶8 Husband’s assertion that Wife should have been bound by the settlement agreement is without merit. T he alleged agreement appears in an extensive ema il exchange between the parties’ counsel negotiating the distribution of the community property and debts. At the conclusion of th is negotiation , Husband’s counsel indicated he would prepare the “notice of settlement and motion to vacate trial
, ” which was ultimately filed on March 12, 2013, one day before the original trial date. The family court then vacated the trial and ordered the settlement agreement be filed by Apri l 11, 2013. No settlement agreement was ever filed. Husband’s assertion th at Wife is bound by Rule 69(B), Ariz. R. Fam. Law P., is unfounded , as no agreement was eve r reduced to a writing or set forth on the record. Moreover , even assuming arguendo the email negotiations could be deemed to establish an agreement, the family cour t had discretion to find th e agreement was unfair and issue orders for the disposition of the parties’ property in a dissolution decree

. See A.R.S. § 25

- 317; see also Rule 69(B). Accordingly, we see no error in the family court’s ultimate distribution of the parties’ property.

CONCLUSION

¶9 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the family court’s decree delineating the distribution of the community property and order denying Husband a new trial

.