Court Opinion

ID: 9390344
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-27 16:02:48.286269+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:34.509836
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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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:

                 GRACE ALEXANDER, Petitioner/Appellant,

                                         v.

                  DAVID STADSKLEV, Respondent/Appellee.

                            No. 1 CA-CV 22-0299 FC
                              FILED 4-27-2023

            Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                           No. FN2020-095027
                 The Honorable Marvin L. Davis, Judge

                                   AFFIRMED

                                    COUNSEL

Paul D. Nordini, Esq., Scottsdale
By Paul D. Nordini
Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant

David Stadsklev, Cave Creek
Respondent/Appellee
                      ALEXANDER v. STADSKLEV
                         Decision of the Court

                      MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Angela K. Paton delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge D. Steven Williams joined.

P A T O N, Judge:

¶1           Grace Alexander (“Wife”) appeals the decree of dissolution of
her marriage with David Stadsklev (“Husband”). We affirm.

                FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2            Husband and Wife married in May 2009, and Wife filed the
petition for dissolution in April 2020. At some point, Husband created a
business (“Compassion Connection”), though it is not clear from the record
whether he did so before or after the parties married. After marriage, the
parties purchased stock in a company called Ark Sciences through
Compassion Connection. The parties, at various times during their
marriage, assisted Husband’s sister (“Sister”) with renovating or restoring
houses, which were owned by limited liability companies (“House
Entities”).

¶3            After a temporary orders hearing, Wife’s counsel stopped
responding to Wife’s inquiries or otherwise participating in the matter.
Wife then obtained new counsel who appeared in a limited scope to review
the case file and reappeared in a limited scope to request a continuance
given prior counsel’s absence. The court granted the motion, and Wife’s
new counsel entered a full appearance in January 2021.

¶4           In April 2021, Wife moved to designate the petition as
complex, continue the trial, and add Sister as a third-party defendant to the
case. Wife argued that an unknown community interest existed in the
House Entities, and that Sister may also be liable for a community lien on
the House Entities. The court again continued the trial but denied Wife’s
two other motions. Wife requested another continuance to conduct
discovery in November 2021, which the court granted.

¶5            That same month, Wife moved to compel disclosure of
information she believed that Husband possessed related to the House
Entities. Husband responded, arguing that the information either did not
exist or belonged to Sister. He claimed he was not compensated for any

                                     2
                      ALEXANDER v. STADSKLEV
                         Decision of the Court

work he may have done with Sister on home projects and that there was no
business associated with the House Entities.

¶6            The court did not expressly rule on the motion to compel but
implicitly denied relief by ordering Wife to file a pretrial statement and
affirming a trial date in one week. The court also cautioned Husband’s
counsel that, “if during the trial, it becomes obvious that these documents
are out there . . . [the court will] vacate the trial midway through” and
award attorneys’ fees to Wife for any delay.

¶7            Separately, Wife argued in her pretrial statement that
Compassion Connection, which she alleged was owned by the community,
ought to be dissolved and the sole asset of value within it—Ark Sciences
stock—be awarded to her. She argued that the stock had “unknown” but
“significant” or “potential value.” Husband asked the court to award
Compassion Connection to him because he claimed the business was
established before the marriage began, and in any event it had no value in
that the business and the stock were both worthless.

¶8             Wife proposed to call an expert to testify at trial as to what
documents Husband ought to have in his possession as a corporate officer.
In response and to clarify its earlier ruling, however, the court noted “[i]t
was never [the court’s] intention to allow the trial to be used as a forum of
discovery” and said the expert would need to testify on some aspect
relevant to trial, such as the value of the community’s interest in the LLCs
at issue. The court cautioned that “[Wife’s] expert can’t take the stand and
testify that [Husband] has these documents if he doesn’t know for a fact
that he has these documents.”

¶9          Wife, her expert, and Husband testified at trial. Neither party
presented any testimony or exhibits concerning the value of the
Compassion Connection entity or Ark Sciences stock.

¶10           After trial, the superior court found that the parties did not
own any real property subject to division and that “[t]he parties have no
interest or lien in any real property.” The superior court awarded
Compassion Connection to Husband.

¶11          Wife filed a motion to vacate the decree and compel
additional discovery that the court considered under Arizona Rule of
Family Law Procedure 83 and denied. We have jurisdiction over Wife’s
timely appeal pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) Section
12-2101(A)(1).

                                     3
                       ALEXANDER v. STADSKLEV
                          Decision of the Court

                               DISCUSSION

¶12           Husband did not file an answering brief, and while we may
consider such failure to be a confession of error, we decline to do so, and
instead address Wife’s claims on their merits. See Thompson v. Thompson,
217 Ariz. 524, 526, ¶ 6, n.1 (App. 2008).

¶13            Wife first contends that the marital community had an
interest in the limited liability companies used for various home
renovations over the years, and that the superior court abused its discretion
by failing to order additional disclosures. But Wife did not bring a special
action petition challenging the court’s denial of her motion to compel
disclosure. We therefore lack jurisdiction to consider Wife’s argument
because denials of motions to compel discovery or designate a case as
complex are non-appealable pretrial discovery orders. See Hine v. Super.
Ct., 18 Ariz.App. 568, 569 (1972) (taking special action jurisdiction over a
pretrial discovery order because it is unappealable).

¶14           Wife next argues that the superior court erred in its division
of property by awarding the Ark Sciences stock to Husband through the
Compassion Connection entity without evidence of the stock’s value. We
review the superior court’s division of property in a dissolution decree for
an abuse of discretion. Helland v. Helland, 236 Ariz. 197, 199, ¶ 8 (App. 2014).
We view the record in the light most favorable to sustaining the superior
court and will affirm if the court’s order is reasonably supported by the
evidence. Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, 193 Ariz. 343, 346, ¶ 5 (App. 1998). The
value of an asset “is a factual determination that must be based on the facts
and circumstances of each case.” Walsh v. Walsh, 230 Ariz. 486, 490, ¶ 9
(App. 2012) (citation omitted).

¶15           Neither party testified at trial as to the value of the Ark
Sciences stock held by Compassion Connection. Wife admits that both
parties presented “competing positions” in their respective pretrial
statements as to whether the stock had any value, but Wife offered no
affirmative evidence of a value greater than zero.

¶16            The superior court must divide community property
equitably. A.R.S. § 25-318(A). But the party disputing a valuation has the
burden to point to evidence that the court abused its discretion. See In re
Est. of Long, 229 Ariz. 458, 464, ¶ 22 (App. 2012) (holding that burden is on
party seeking to overturn a ruling to show an abuse of discretion). Here,
Wife presented no evidence contradicting the court’s implicit zero-dollar

                                       4
                     ALEXANDER v. STADSKLEV
                        Decision of the Court

valuation of Compassion Connection and the Ark Sciences stock it holds in
the decree, so we cannot find an abuse of discretion.

                              CONCLUSION

¶17          We affirm.

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

                                        5