Court Opinion

ID: 9367339
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-31 16:04:30.022496+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:59.383092
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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

                SANTAMARIA QUIROZ, Petitioner/Appellee,

                                         v.

             IVAN QUIROZ MANCERA, Respondent/Appellant.

                            No. 1 CA-CV 22-0253 FC
                                 FILED 1-31-2023

            Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                            No. FC2021-092818
                The Honorable David E. McDowell, Judge

        AFFIRMED IN PART/VACATED IN PART/REMANDED

                                    COUNSEL

Santamaria Quiroz, Tempe
Petitioner/Appellee

Michael L. Gertell LLC, Phoenix
By Michael L. Gertell
Counsel for Respondent/Appellant
                          QUIROZ v. MANCERA
                           Decision of the Court

                      MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Paul J. McMurdie delivered the Court’s decision, in which Presiding
Judge Brian Y. Furuya and Chief Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.

M c M U R D I E, Judge:

¶1            Ivan Quiroz Mancera (“Husband”) appeals from the superior
court’s calculation of reimbursements for community contributions to
separate property. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

             FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2            While Husband and Santamaria Quiroz (“Wife”)1 were
married, the couple purchased a parcel of real property. At the time of
acquisition, Husband signed a disclaimer deed relinquishing his interest in
the property.

¶3            In 2021, Wife petitioned for the dissolution of the marriage.
The parties proceeded to trial to address the disposition of the real property.
The court found that, although the property was bought during the
marriage, the disclaimer deed rebutted the presumption that the property
was community property. The court found that the real property was Wife’s
separate property.

¶4            The court also found that the down payment and the
mortgage on the property were paid with community funds, thus entitling
the marital community to a lien against Wife’s property. To determine the
community interest, the court applied the formula outlined in Drahos v.
Rens, 149 Ariz. 248 (App. 1985), and concluded that the community lien on
the real property amounted to $14,692.48. The court then found that
Husband was entitled to one-half of the community lien plus a
post-judgment interest rate.

¶5             Husband filed a motion for reconsideration. He contended
the court had erred by inadvertently swapping two variables in the Drahos
formula, leading to a miscalculation. Husband provided a recalculation that
concluded the community lien should be $59,639, which “divided by
2 [is] $29,319.50 for [Husband]’s share.” The court agreed that it had made

1      Wife did not file an answering brief.

                                      2
                           QUIROZ v. MANCERA
                            Decision of the Court

an arithmetic error. On May 16, it stated in a minute entry that, unless a
party objected, the court would later enter an order following Husband’s
motion, finding the community lien to be $59,639, with Husband’s half
equating to $29,319.50.

¶6            Husband then filed a notice to correct the court’s order. He
agreed that the Drahos calculation was now correct but pointed out that
Husband’s share—half of $59,639—should be $29,819.50. The court agreed
that it had made a typographical error and stated, “The Order contained
the figure $28,319.50 but the correct figure should have been $28,819.50.”
The court then ordered nunc pro tunc that the minute entry be amended to
grant Husband “$29,319.50[] [i]n place and instead of . . . $29,819.50.”

¶7           Husband then filed another notice to correct the minute entry,
asking only that the court provide a date by which he must be paid. The
court denied relief, noting that it had awarded a judgment, not an order of
payment, and thus no date was required.

¶8            On June 8, consistent with its May 16 order, the court
amended its original order and found that Husband was “entitled to one
half of the community lien or $29,319.50.” The court awarded Husband
judgment against Wife in that amount plus post-judgment interest.

¶9           Husband appealed, and we have jurisdiction under A.R.S.
§ 12-2101(A)(2).

                                DISCUSSION

¶10           Husband first argues that the court erred in applying the
Drahos formula. “The determination of the amount of the community
interest in separate property resulting in an equitable lien is a mixed
question of fact and law,” and we will defer to the superior court’s factual
findings but review legal conclusions de novo. Saba v. Khoury, 516 P.3d 891,
894, ¶ 7 (Ariz. 2022).

¶11           Husband relies on Femiano v. Maust, 248 Ariz. 613 (App. 2020),
to argue that the Drahos formula should not have been applied here. But
our supreme court has held that, under nearly identical circumstances, the
Drahos formula may be properly used. Saba, 516 P.3d at 896, ¶¶ 14–16. In
doing so, the supreme court explicitly disapproved of the reasoning and
conclusion in Femiano. Id. at 897, ¶ 18. The court, therefore, did not err in its
application of the Drahos formula.

                                       3
                          QUIROZ v. MANCERA
                           Decision of the Court

¶12            Husband next points out the superior court’s math error in its
final order. Although the court consistently found that Husband “is entitled
to one half of the community lien,” and Husband acknowledges the lien is
$59,639 using the Drahos formula, the court erred in its final calculations.
Because Husband is entitled to one-half of $59,639, he is entitled to
$29,819.50.

¶13           Lastly, Husband asserts the trial court erred by not setting a
date by which Wife must pay Husband. But Husband develops no
argument about why the court erred. Under Arizona Rule of Civil
Appellate Procedure 13(a)(7), an appellant’s opening brief must contain
developed arguments. Thus, we find the claim waived. Ritchie v. Krasner,
221 Ariz. 288, 305, ¶ 62 (App. 2009).

                           ATTORNEY’S FEES

¶14           Husband requests his reasonable attorney’s fees. Per our
discretion, we decline to award him attorney’s fees. As the prevailing party,
Husband is entitled to his costs upon compliance with Arizona Rule of Civil
Appellate Procedure 21.

                              CONCLUSION

¶15          We vacate the court’s June 8 order and remand for further
proceedings consistent with this decision.

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

                                        4