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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

CARMEN D. JIMENEZ, Petitioner/Appellee,

v.

JOSE DE JESUS JIMENEZ, Respondent/Appellant.

IRMA A. GARCIA, Third Party/Respondent/Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CV 16-0627 FC

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yuma County

No. S1400DO200201388

 No. S1400DO2009010951

(Consolidated)

The Honorable Lawrence C. Kenworthy, Judge

AFFIRMED

1 Although Appellants did not include case number S1400DO200901095 in 

their notice of appeal, Appellants appeal from an order entered in that case. 

Therefore by order we amend the caption to include case number 

S1400DO200901095.

FILED 3-22-2018
2

COUNSEL

Meerchaum & Orduno, PLLC, Yuma

By Candice Orduno-Crouse

Counsel for Respondent/Appellant and Third-Party Respondent/Appellant

Law Office of Sonia Monique Ramirez, PLLC, Yuma

By Sonia M. Ramirez Sardinas

Co-Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee

S. Alan Cook, PC, Phoenix

By S. Alan Cook, Sharon Ottenberg

Co-Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Jennifer B. Campbell delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop and Judge Paul J. McMurdie joined.

C A M P B E L L, Judge:

¶1 Respondent/Appellant Jose De Jesus Jimenez (“Husband”) 

and Third-Party Respondent/Appellant Irma A. Garcia (collectively, 

“Appellants”) appeal from a decree of dissolution awarding 

Petitioner/Appellee Carmen D. Jimenez (“Wife”) an equalization payment 

of $122,266 as her community share of two restaurants. For the following 

reasons, we affirm. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2

¶2 Around 2002, Wife and Husband separated. Before

separating they sold two restaurants they owned together, which

eventually yielded about $10,000 in proceeds. That same year, Husband, 

whose nickname is “Pepe,” began living with his girlfriend, Garcia. Later 

that year Husband used the sale proceeds to open a restaurant, Los 

Manjares de Pepe (“Pepe One”). Garcia’s name was the only one listed on 

 

2 In reviewing the apportionment of community property, we consider the 

evidence in a light most favorable to upholding the family court’s ruling. 

Kohler v. Kohler, 211 Ariz. 106, 107, ¶ 2 (App. 2005).
JIMENEZ v. JIMENEZ et al.

Decision of the Court

3

the business license. In 2009, Wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage

with children, and served Husband with the petition. In 2011, a second

restaurant, “Pepe Two,” was opened, also with Garcia’s name as the only 

name on the business license.

¶3 In September 2011, Wife filed a motion for temporary orders 

seeking spousal support. She alleged Husband owned the two restaurants, 

but “disguised” the income by putting the restaurants in Garcia’s name.

After a hearing, the family court ordered the parties to submit their tax 

returns and took the matter under advisement. Those returns reflected that 

Husband filed Garcia’s state and federal tax returns for Pepe One from 2008 

to 2010.

¶4 On November 23, 2011, the family court entered its under 

advisement ruling (the “temporary order”). The court found, as relevant 

here, a portion of Pepe One was in fact community property. The family 

court determined “Pepe [One] should be divided 25% to husband’s 

girlfriend, 50% to Husband’s reputation/goodwill and 25% to Husband’s 

capital contribution[s] when the business was started.” Based on the 

business income in 2008 and 2009 the court also found “the community 

property portion of [] Pepe [One] has a value of $130,000.00.” Based on these

findings, and a consideration of the relevant statutory factors, the court 

awarded wife monthly spousal maintenance. The court also determined 

“Wife should be compensated for the value of the business in a community 

property division [in a] final order, not a temporary order.”

¶5 After the court issued the temporary order, Wife filed a 

second amended petition for dissolution of marriage with children, 

seeking, as relevant here, an equitable division of community property.

3

She also brought claims for conversion, fraudulent conveyance, and a 

constructive trust. Wife’s claims were based on her contention that Pepe

One and Pepe Two were “community businesses” and as such: (1) Wife was 

denied her community interest because Husband placed the restaurants in 

Garcia’s name (conversion); (2) Husband hindered and defrauded Wife by 

placing the community businesses in Garcia’s name (fraudulent 

 

3 In her initial petition, Wife sought a determination of custody, parenting 

time, and child support. In her second petition, Wife dropped the issues of 

custody and parenting time because by that time the children were adults, 

and she later waived the issue of child support. Therefore, the family court’s 

final order does not address these issues.
JIMENEZ v. JIMENEZ et al.

Decision of the Court

4

conveyance); and (3) Wife was entitled to relief, given the court’s findings 

in the temporary order that a portion of Pepe One was community property 

(constructive trust).

4

¶6 In September 2013, Wife moved to join Garcia as a necessary 

party. See Ariz. R. Fam. P. 33(C).5 Wife argued that, absent joinder, she had 

no way of receiving her community interest in the restaurants. The family 

court granted the motion. Wife filed a third amended petition for 

dissolution of marriage, adding Garcia as a party to the claims for 

conversion, fraudulent conveyance, and constructive trust. 

¶7 In 2015, the court held a bench trial. At the start of trial, 

counsel for both Husband and Garcia conceded a portion of Pepe One was 

community property, but argued Wife had only a 25% community interest

in Pepe One. Counsel denied Wife had any community interest in Pepe 

Two. 

¶8 Appellants both testified that Husband was part owner of 

Pepe One. Husband testified Pepe One did not have any value because 

business had dropped. He further testified Garcia was the sole owner of 

Pepe Two. Appellants both testified Husband primarily worked at Pepe 

Two, but Garcia did not keep track of his hours and Husband paid himself 

without any need to obtain Garcia’s consent. They argued, regardless, 

neither Pepe One nor Pepe Two had any value. 

¶9 Wife claimed she had a community interest in Pepe One and 

Pepe Two, based in part on Husband’s goodwill. Wife disputed the 

restaurants had no value and presented a valuation of the restaurants, 

including good will, of $200,000. She based her valuation on factors, such 

as her experience working in the restaurant business and her knowledge of 

the restaurants’ clientele and earnings (based on her children working at 

Pepe One and Pepe Two).

¶10 Wife sought a portion of Husband’s goodwill, as a 

community asset, on the basis that Husband had provided his name,

 

4 The dissolution of marriage case was subsequently consolidated with the 

parties’ child support case. 

5 We cite to the current version of all statutes and rules in this decision, 

which have not been materially amended since the time of the relevant 

actions. 
JIMENEZ v. JIMENEZ et al.

Decision of the Court

5

reputation, and recipes they previously created together for Pepe One and 

Pepe Two. Wife presented evidence of Husband’s ownership and goodwill

that included a newspaper interview with Husband about the restaurants 

in which Husband stated Pepe One and Pepe Two were a “family business”

and the recipes they used were his “mom’s” and “some [that he] learned 

along the way.” Wife testified the recipes were recipes she and Husband

had developed at their previous restaurant they owned together.

¶11 At the conclusion of trial, the family court ordered briefing 

and later issued a decree of dissolution. The family court made several 

findings, including: assets for Pepe One and Pepe Two had been placed in 

Garcia’s name and Garcia was made the owner to avoid Wife’s community 

interests; Husband and Garcia failed to disclose business records for Pepe 

One and Pepe Two and there were “missing or unaccounted for monies and 

assets” they failed to disclose; Garcia had converted Wife’s share of 

goodwill for her own use; and Garcia and Husband had hid goodwill 

profits, making it difficult to determine how much money was traceable

back to Pepe One and community contributions to the Appellants’ 

residence on Third Place (the “Third Place Property”).

¶12 The family court also found the claim that Pepe One and Pepe 

Two had low profits and wages after 2011 “not believable” based on the 

evidence of increases in both net income and gross income for previous 

years. It further found Husband’s goodwill was a community asset that 

existed at the time Wife petitioned for dissolution. The court further found 

that, based on evidence it now had, it had previously “grossly 

undervalued” Husband’s goodwill in 2011.

¶13 The family court divided the property and debts and ordered 

Husband to pay spousal maintenance. Regarding Pepe One and Pepe Two, 

the family court ordered Husband and Garcia to make “an equalization 

payment for the restaurants in the amount of $122,266.00” which included 

Husband’s goodwill, to compensate Wife for her “community share from 

both restaurants [Pepe One and Pepe Two].” To secure the equalization 

payment the court ordered a judicial lien against Pepe One and the Third 

Place Property, which was titled in Garcia’s name as well. The court also 

granted Wife her attorney fees and costs.
JIMENEZ v. JIMENEZ et al.

Decision of the Court

6

DISCUSSION

I. Jurisdiction

¶14 Appellants argue the family court did not have subject matter 

jurisdiction to hear and decide Wife’s claims for conversion, fraudulent 

conveyance, and constructive trust (collectively, the “civil claims”). They

rely on Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 25-311, which grants the 

superior court, in part, jurisdiction to hear and decide matters regarding a 

dissolution of marriage as set forth in the marital statutes. As we construe 

it, Appellants’ argument is that the civil claims are not contained within the 

marital statutes, A.R.S. §§ 25-311 to -331, and thus, the family court did not 

have jurisdiction to consider the civil claims when determining and 

awarding Wife her share of the community assets in a divorce proceeding. 

¶15 Subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law we review de 

novo. Ader v. Estate of Felger, 240 Ariz. 32, 43, ¶ 37 (App. 2016). Subject 

matter jurisdiction “refers to a court’s statutory or constitutional power to 

hear and determine a particular type of case.” Id. at 44, ¶ 43 (citations 

omitted). As noted, A.R.S. § 25-311 grants the court jurisdiction to hear and 

decide all matters arising pursuant to the marital statutes, A.R.S. §§ 25-311

to -331, including, as here, a division of the marital community. The 

superior court is a “single unified trial court of general jurisdiction,” and 

the separation of the superior court into divisions is “purely imaginary and 

for convenience only.” DiPasquale v. DiPasquale, 243 Ariz. 156, 158, ¶ 11 

(App. 2017) (citations omitted). “To departmentalize the [superior] court, 

however, is not to partition its general subject matter jurisdiction.” State v. 

Marks, 186 Ariz. 139, 142 (App. 1996). Appellants’ grievance, though raised 

under the purview of “jurisdiction,” is actually whether the family court 

exceeded the scope of its authority under the marital statutes. See In re 

Marriage of Thorn, 235 Ariz. 216, 220, ¶ 17 (App. 2014) (subject matter 

jurisdiction is not “coterminous” with the family court’s authority to act 

pursuant to the marital statutes). 

¶16 Under A.R.S. § 25-318(A) the family court has authority to 

assign each spouse their sole and separate property and to equitably divide 

the community. In so doing, the family court “is specifically authorized to 

consider excessive or abnormal expenditures and the concealment or 

fraudulent disposition of community property when apportioning 

community property.” Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, 193 Ariz. 343, 346, ¶ 6 (App. 

1998) (citations omitted); see also A.R.S. § 25-318(C). The family court 

undoubtedly had authority to consider and authorize relief for Wife’s 
JIMENEZ v. JIMENEZ et al.

Decision of the Court

7

claims, as they were claims to a portion of what Wife argued were

“community businesses”—Pepe One and Pepe Two.

6

¶17 As noted above, the family court awarded what it determined 

was Wife’s share of the community and issued a lien on Pepe One and the 

Third Place Property—properties it found Garcia and Husband had 

comingled with Wife’s share of the community assets—to secure payment. 

Without question, the family court had authority to grant such relief in the 

decree of dissolution in which the court is charged with making an 

equitable division of community property. A.R.S. § 25-318(A), (C), (E); Hunt 

v. Hunt, 22 Ariz. App. 554, 556 (1974) (“It is well settled in Arizona that 

divorce is a statutory action and that the trial court has only such authority 

as is given it by statute.”).

¶18 Appellants also assert the court lacked “jurisdiction” because 

its award of “a monetary judgment for equalization” (the $122,266) was an 

in personam award for “money damages.” As discussed, the family court’s

award of Wife’s community interest and issuance of the liens were in the 

province of the family court’s authority to divide the community estate. 

A.R.S. § 25-318(A), (E). The family court necessarily must establish which 

assets are part of the community and therefore susceptible to division. Here,

the court’s determination that Wife was entitled to a monetary equalization 

payment does not convert the community property award into a judgement 

for money damages against Garcia or Husband. The amount necessary

must be derived from the community assets. Garcia and Husband may 

have to liquidate some of the assets Husband was awarded to equalize the 

marital community property division, but he was awarded assets of equal 

relative value, Pepe One and Pepe Two. 

¶19 Appellants next contend the family court exceeded its 

statutory authority in its award of Wife’s community interest because it 

improperly considered “marital misconduct.” Section 25-318(A) directs the 

family court to “divide the community, joint tenancy and other property 

held in common equitably, though not necessarily in kind, without regard 

to marital misconduct.” What Appellants frame as “marital misconduct” 

are really factors the family court was permitted to consider under A.R.S. § 

 

6 This point was emphasized by the family court at trial when it rejected 

Husband’s argument that the claims constituted legal actions Wife could 

not bring in divorce proceedings. As noted by the family court, the issue, 

with respect to these claims, was what “relief” the court had “authority to 

enter,” finding that it had the authority “to divide all the assets that are out 

there that are part of the community.” 
JIMENEZ v. JIMENEZ et al.

Decision of the Court

8

25-318(C). Specifically, A.R.S. § 25-318(C) “does not prevent the court from 

considering . . . abnormal expenditures, destruction, concealment or 

fraudulent disposition of community, joint tenancy and other property held 

in common.” 

¶20 Accordingly, the family court had both subject matter 

jurisdiction and the authority to consider Wife’s civil claims and to award 

her a community interest in Pepe One and Pepe Two. 

II. Temporary Order – Joinder

¶21 Appellants argue Garcia should have been joined as a 

necessary party before the family court issued the temporary order, given 

its findings that a portion of Pepe One was a community asset. They ask 

this court to vacate the decree of dissolution and remand the matter for the 

family court to consider Garcia’s interests. Appellants did not raise this 

argument below, but the defense of failure to join a necessary party, which 

we review de novo, may be raised for the first time on appeal. Gerow v. 

Covill, 192 Ariz. 9, 14, ¶ 19 (App. 1998).

¶22 Joinder of Garcia for the temporary order proceedings may

have been appropriate because the court did find that a portion of Pepe One 

was community property. See A.R.S. § 25-314(D) (“The court may join 

additional parties necessary for the exercise of its authority.”). But joinder 

was not required. Garcia was not an indispensable party given that the only 

relief granted in the temporary order was spousal maintenance—an order 

enforceable only against Husband. See Gerow, 192 Ariz. at 14-15, ¶¶ 20-23.

Accordingly, Garcia’s interest in Pepe One was not before the court for 

consideration at the temporary order stage of the proceeding.

¶23 Appellants argue the family court “did not reconsider” its 

findings in the temporary order but, rather, used the temporary order to

resolve the “remaining issues” incorporating the temporary findings into 

the final decree. We disagree. The family court used the temporary order 

as “the starting point“ for some of the issues to be resolved in the decree. It 

then made new findings consistent with the ultimate resolution of the issue. 

For example, the court found that Appellants failed to rebut evidence of

Appellants’ relative contributions to Pepe One, noting “[i]f anything the 

evidence at trial confirm[ed] those findings” and that it had previously 

“grossly undervalued” Husband’s goodwill in 2011.

¶24 Finally, the temporary order terminated when the family 

court entered the decree of dissolution. A.R.S. § 25-315(F)(4) (in dissolution 

proceedings temporary orders terminate when the final decree is entered); 
JIMENEZ v. JIMENEZ et al.

Decision of the Court

9

Ariz. R. Fam. L. P. 47(M). Before trial, however, the family court had 

properly joined Garcia as a party. Garcia testified, offered evidence, and 

fully participated as a party in the proceedings. Accordingly, we reject 

Appellants’ argument that the failure to join Garcia before issuing the

temporary order requires us to vacate and remand the decree of dissolution.

III. Division of Goodwill

¶25 Appellants argue the family court erred in its division of the 

goodwill value of Pepe One and Pepe Two, because the goodwill valuation: 

(1) included Appellants’ separate property, and (2) was unsupported by the 

evidence. Appellants further argue that the court’s conclusion that some of 

restaurants’ assets were concealed constituted “improper speculation.” We 

reject these arguments.

¶26 We review the family court’s division of property for an abuse 

of discretion, but review de novo the characterization of the property 

because it is a conclusion of law. In re Marriage of Pownall, 197 Ariz. 577, 581, 

¶ 15 (App. 2000). The family court has broad discretion in its apportionment 

of community assets. Gerow, 192 Ariz. at 16 n.6, ¶ 28. We will not disturb 

the family court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous. Hrudka v. 

Hrudka, 186 Ariz. 84, 92 (App. 1995) superseded by statute on other grounds, 

Myrick v. Maloney, 235 Ariz. 491, 494, ¶ 8 (App. 2014). “[G]oodwill is 

essentially reputation that will probably generate future business.” Walsh v. 

Walsh, 230 Ariz. 486, 490, ¶ 11 (App. 2012) (citations omitted). “[F]uture 

earning capacity per se is not goodwill” but “when that future earning 

capacity has been enhanced because reputation leads to probable future 

patronage from existing and potential clients, goodwill may exist and have 

value.” Id. (citations omitted). 

¶27 The family court found Wife and Husband did not intend for 

the assets of Pepe One to be Husband’s separate property. Specifically, Wife 

did not know “with requisite specificity what the $10,000 would be used 

for.” Further, Husband’s goodwill existed at the time Wife petitioned for 

dissolution and was the most valuable asset of Pepe Two. Importantly, the 

family court determined Appellants had hidden the goodwill profits and 

there were additional issues regarding how much of those profits were 

depleted on Appellants’ spending on vacations, gifts, and living expenses. 

¶28 In reaching its conclusion, the family court considered the 

evidence, including business records, tax records, bank statements, and the 

parties’ testimony. Based on that evidence, the court concluded Appellants 

did not fully disclose all the business records, monies, and assets, for Pepe 
JIMENEZ v. JIMENEZ et al.

Decision of the Court

10

One or Pepe Two. The court then determined the value and apportionment 

of Husband’s goodwill. The family court also did not find Appellants’ 

testimony regarding the profits and wages of the restaurants, after 2011, to 

be credible, a finding to which we defer. See Gutierrez, 193 Ariz. at 347, ¶ 13

(appellate court defers to family court’s findings regarding witness 

credibility and what weight to give conflicting evidence).

¶29 Appellants admitted Wife had a community interest in Pepe 

One. Husband testified he took proceeds, $10,000, from the sale of a 

restaurant he owned with Wife and used the proceeds to open Pepe One.

Wife’s counsel impeached Husband’s testimony that the $10,000 was 

separate property he received in exchange for deeding a residence (the 

James residence) to Wife, with his testimony from the 2011 temporary 

orders proceedings in which he testified Wife kept the money from the sale 

of the restaurant. Wife testified she knew Husband intended to open a 

restaurant, but did not know that he planned on opening a restaurant with 

Garcia, and that Husband provided the use of his name and recipes for Pepe 

One and Pepe Two. Garcia admitted Husband, as part-owner, helped 

devise the menu for Pepe One and they used the same recipes at Pepe Two, 

including Husband’s specialty recipe from his mother. 

¶30 Appellants do not specify what “separate” property they 

contend the court used in its goodwill valuation and, there is nothing in the 

record demonstrating the family court included Appellants’ separate 

property in that calculation. Given the above facts, we also find no abuse of 

discretion in the family court’s apportionment of goodwill. See Wisner v. 

Wisner, 129 Ariz. 333, 338 (App. 1981) (citations omitted) (there exists no 

“rigid and unvarying rule” for the family court’s determination of the value 

of goodwill and “each case must be determined on its own facts and 

circumstances”).

IV. Fraudulent Conveyance and Conversion 

¶31 Appellants argue the family court’s findings regarding 

fraudulent conveyance and conversion are unsupported by the evidence.

They essentially argue that Wife waived her interest in Pepe One and, thus, 

there was insufficient evidence to support the family court’s finding of 

fraudulent conveyance and conversion and to grant Wife an award of 

marital assets based on her community interest in Pepe One and Pepe Two. 

We review the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the family 

court’s findings, and we will affirm if reasonable evidence supports the 

family court’s findings. See Gutierrez, 193 Ariz. at 346, ¶ 5.
JIMENEZ v. JIMENEZ et al.

Decision of the Court

11

¶32 As an initial matter, Appellants’ argument Wife waived her 

community interest in Pepe One is inconsistent with their position in the 

family court. As this is the only argument raised regarding their objection 

to Wife’s conversion claim, we reject it. Here, Wife’s requested relief for

fraudulent conveyance was her share of the marital community. It was in 

this context, and in exercise of its discretionary power to divide the marital 

community equitably, that the family court considered, and found, a 

fraudulent conveyance, which it was entitled to do. See Gerow, 192 Ariz. at 

17, ¶¶ 33-36; Cf. Weaver v. Weaver, 131 Ariz. 586 (1982). In dividing the 

community, the family court has the power to divide the community 

“equitably, though not necessarily in kind.” A.R.S. § 25-318(A). Section 25-

318(C) “explicitly allows the court to consider excessive or abnormal 

expenditures as well as destruction, concealment or fraudulent disposition 

of community property,” Neely v. Neely, 115 Ariz. 47, 50 (App. 1977), which 

it did. 

¶33 Reasonable evidence supports the family court’s findings. As 

noted, Appellants admitted at trial Wife had a community interest in Pepe 

One. Further, they admit on appeal they were “remiss” in their disclosure 

and “tax records and bank records did not match up” for Pepe One and 

Pepe Two, from 2011 onward, but argue this alone is insufficient to support 

a finding of fraudulent conveyance because it is not a “badge of fraud.”

First, as this court has previously stated, “badges of fraud” for purposes of 

fraudulent conveyance, are merely “signs or marks of fraud from which 

intent may be inferred, and are not required elements.” Gerow, 192 Ariz. at 

17, ¶ 34. 

¶34 Second, Appellants again misrepresent the family court’s 

findings because the court considered a variety of factors that support its 

findings. Appellants testified Husband was an owner of Pepe One. The 

record further demonstrates that: Pepe One and Pepe Two were named 

after Husband; Husband was featured in the newspaper article as a coowner (with Garcia) of Pepe One and Pepe Two; Pepe One and Pepe Two 

used his “family” recipes; Husband had access to both business checking 

accounts for Pepe One and Pepe Two; and Husband regularly paid himself 

without requiring Garcia’s authorization. It is undisputed that Wife has
JIMENEZ v. JIMENEZ et al.

Decision of the Court

12

never received any interest in Pepe One or Pepe Two. Thus, reasonable 

evidence supports the family court’s award to Wife.7

V. Paragraph Ten

¶35 Appellants argue the decree of dissolution contains findings

not found in the family court’s under advisement ruling and ask this court 

to strike those findings from the decree. Specifically, they object to the 

finding in paragraph 10 of the decree that they “willfully executed [sic] to 

falsely represent the true ownership of the restaurants between the parties” 

and did so “with an intent to deny []Wife her property interest” (the 

“paragraph 10 findings”).

¶36 Appellants claim on appeal that the family court failed to 

issue an order ruling on their objection raised below to the paragraph 10 

findings. The record demonstrates, however, the family court did 

ultimately consider and overule their objection. The family court entered its 

under advisement ruling and directed Wife to submit a form of decree and 

judgment for signature. Wife did so. Husband filed an “Objection to Form 

of Judg[ment]” objecting to the inclusion of paragraph 10 in the proposed 

form of judgment arguing “there were no findings of fact or conclusions of 

law” in the court’s under advisement ruling that made “such a finding or 

conclusion of law.” 8

¶37 The family court subsequently entered the decree of 

dissolution. Appellants then filed a “Motion for Relief from Final 

Judgment” arguing, in part that the “form of judg[ment] remains at issue” 

because the family court had not yet ruled on their objection to the form of 

judgment. The family court denied the motion, a fact that Appellants 

acknowledged when they cited the denial of their motion for relief in the 

notice of appeal. Appellants, however, raise no argument regarding why 

the denial of that motion was in error and have waived the issue on appeal. 

See ARCAP 13(7)(A).

 

7 For the reasons already discussed, we also reject Appellants’ argument 

that the court’s issuance of a lien against the Third Place Property exceeded 

its authority. 

8 Garcia motioned to join the motion. 
JIMENEZ v. JIMENEZ et al.

Decision of the Court

13

CONCLUSION

¶38 For the forgoing reasons, we affirm. We grant Wife’s request 

for attorney fees and costs, A.R.S. § 25-324, contingent upon her compliance 

with Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 21.