Court Opinion

ID: 9926744
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-25 17:01:56.830131+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:59.738799
License: Public Domain

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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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
                                 FILED 1-25-2024

            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
                          ZUNIGA v. ZUNIGA
                          Decision of the Court

                     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

                                    2
                             ZUNIGA v. ZUNIGA
                             Decision of the Court

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 post-
petition payments due to her financial situation, and Father withheld

                                        3
                           ZUNIGA v. ZUNIGA
                           Decision of the Court

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.

                                     4
                          ZUNIGA v. ZUNIGA
                          Decision of the Court

¶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.

                          AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
                          FILED: AA

                                       5