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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

SOILA ANN VASQUEZ-ARAIZA, Petitioner/Appellee,

v.

JOSE LOPEZ GURROLA, Respondent/Appellant.

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 Gurrola

Respondent/Appellant

Soila Ann Vasquez-Araiza

Petitioner/Appellee
VASQUEZ-ARAIZA 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 to Soila VasquezAraiza (“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 PROCEDURAL 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 the trial setting and 

ordered the parties to submit their settlement documents by April 11, 2013. 

No settlement agreement was ever filed. After retaining new counsel, Wife 

filed a “Motion for Contempt, Sanctions, Attorney’s Fees, and Request for 

Expedited Hearing,” alleging that Husband fraudulently induced Wife into 

a settlement and dissipated marital assets. Wife further contended 

Husband had failed to provide any disclosures or financial information as 

ordered by the court, and Wife had negotiated a settlement based solely 

upon assurances made by Husband. Wife also alleged Husband interfered

with the operations of the family business.

¶3 Without ruling on Wife’s motion, the family court set a new 

trial date for July 10, 2013, and ordered that all discovery and disclosure be 

completed by June 10, 2013. Wife filed her disclosure statement on June 7, 

2013. Husband filed his “Supplemental Rule 49 Statement” 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) both Husband 

and Wife would receive the vehicles in his or her possession. Although 

both parties testified during trial, the record on appeal does not include 

transcripts of the proceedings.
VASQUEZ-ARAIZA v. GURROLA

Decision of the Court

3

¶4 The family court dissolved the parties’ marriage on August 

23, 2013. The court awarded 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-plex property on 

Horne Street in Mesa be sold and the proceeds divided, with Husband 

required to reimburse Wife $31,750.35 from his share for improper 

expenditures, including (1) $19,409.35 that Husband spent without 

agreement or authorization after the dissolution petition was filed, and (2) 

$12,341.00 Husband owed to the family business. The court also ordered 

Husband to pay Wife half of the proceeds of Husband’s unauthorized sale 

of the parties’ personal property. The 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. Husband timely appealed. We have 

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

ANALYSIS

¶6 Husband argues the family court’s apportionment of real 

property was unfair. In addition, Husband asserts Wife should have been 

bound by the pretrial 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, 1132-33 (App. 1983). As the appellant, Husband had a duty to 

produce the entire record, including providing necessary transcripts. See 

ARCAP 11(b). He failed to do so, and this court will thus assume the 

missing record supports the family court’s findings. See Baker 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 

error 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 without 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-ARAIZA v. GURROLA

Decision of the Court

4

cannot assess whether the family court otherwise failed to consider 

evidence, improperly admitted evidence, or violated 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. The alleged agreement appears in 

an extensive email exchange between the parties’ counsel negotiating the 

distribution of the community property and debts. At the conclusion of this 

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 April 11, 

2013. No settlement agreement was ever filed. Husband’s assertion that 

Wife is bound by Rule 69(B), Ariz. R. Fam. Law P., is unfounded, as no 

agreement was ever 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 court had discretion to find the

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.