Court Opinion

ID: 9365514
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-24 14:02:54.55332+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:45.940457
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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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:

               SAWAKO MOMII LESLIE, Petitioner/Appellant,

                                         v.

                JOHN MARVIN LESLIE, Respondent/Appellee.

                            No. 1 CA-CV 22-0199 FC
                              FILED 01-24-2023

            Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                           No. FN2017-092934
               The Honorable Quinton H. Cushner, Judge

               AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART

                                    COUNSEL

Sawako Momii Leslie, Long Beach, California
Petitioner/Appellant

Scott L. Patterson, P.L.L.C., Tempe
By Scott L. Patterson
Counsel for Respondent/Appellee
                            LESLIE v. LESLIE
                           Decision of the Court

                      MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Angela K. Paton and Chief Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.

C R U Z, Judge:

¶1            Sawako Momii Leslie (“Wife”) appeals from the superior
court’s entry of a divorce decree and a qualified domestic relations order
(“QDRO”) awarding John Marvin Leslie (“Husband”) one half the
community portion of her University of California 457(B) deferred
compensation plan, as well as earnings from the valuation date to the
segregation date. We dismiss the appeal to the extent it challenges the
divorce decree because Wife previously unsuccessfully appealed from the
entry of the decree. We otherwise affirm.

              FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2            The parties were married in 1978 in Japan. Husband initiated
divorce proceedings in 2016, but those proceedings were dismissed by
stipulation of the parties. In 2017, Wife petitioned for dissolution of
marriage, acknowledging that the parties were validly married and that
both parties lived in Arizona on the date of filing and at least ninety days
prior.

¶3            The court set the matter for trial, but Wife moved pretrial to
dismiss the divorce proceedings, arguing the marriage was invalid. The
court denied Wife’s motion, proceeded to trial, and entered the divorce
decree, including a finding that the parties were validly married. In the
decree, the superior court awarded each party one half of the community
portion of the community retirement accounts and other retirement
accounts containing community assets. It also ordered the parties to select
a qualified person to prepare a QDRO. Wife appealed the decree, and this
court affirmed. Leslie v. Leslie, 1 CA-CV 19-0628 FC, 2020 WL 3525912 (Ariz.
App. June 30, 2020) (mem. decision).

¶4          A special master subsequently prepared a QDRO dividing the
community portion of Wife’s University of California 457(b) deferred
compensation plan. The QDRO awarded Husband over $64,000, as well as

                                     2
                            LESLIE v. LESLIE
                           Decision of the Court

earnings from the valuation date to the date Husband’s award is segregated
from Wife’s account. The court signed and entered the QDRO.

¶5          Wife timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to
Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 12-2101(A)(1).

                              DISCUSSION

I.    The Divorce Decree

¶6           Wife argues the divorce decree is unenforceable in every
respect because it does not flow from a valid marriage, and she objects to
the division of property specified in the decree. Wife also argues that,
because the divorce decree is null and void, the QDRO is unenforceable.

¶7            Wife appealed the divorce decree in August 2019, and this
court affirmed. Leslie, 1 CA-CV 19-0628 FC. Wife’s challenges to the divorce
decree are thus precluded. See ARCAP 9(a). We lack jurisdiction to address
these untimely arguments, and they are dismissed. See id.

II.   The QDRO

¶8              Wife claims the QDRO is invalid because: (1) the court erred
in failing to calculate the QDRO using California law; (2) the QDRO violates
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), Arizona law, and
California law; and (3) the court entered the QDRO without establishing
marital validity or community property rights and was biased.

      A.     California Law Calculations

¶9            Wife argues the superior court erred in applying Arizona law
to calculate “the amount, distribution and timing of payment” in the
QDRO. Wife claims the court instead should have applied California law
because Wife has been domiciled in California since 2007, her employer
administers the retirement plan in California, neither Wife nor her
employer have “any significant relationship” with Arizona, and employee
benefit plans regulated by California should be divided according to the
state where the employee resides.

¶10           Wife filed her petition for dissolution of marriage in Arizona
and attested both she and Husband lived in Arizona when she filed it and
at least ninety days prior. See A.R.S. § 25-312(A)(1). Neither party
challenged this assertion or the court’s authority to hear the divorce
proceedings, enter a decree of dissolution of marriage, and divide the

                                     3
                            LESLIE v. LESLIE
                           Decision of the Court

marital property. See A.R.S. § 25-312(A), (E). Pursuant to A.R.S. § 25-312,
the court properly applied Arizona law when exercising its broad discretion
in dividing the community portions of the community retirement accounts
for divorcing litigants who avowed, under oath, to be Arizona residents.
See Boncoskey v. Boncoskey, 216 Ariz. 448, 451, ¶ 13 (App. 2007). We find no
error.

      B.      California Law, Arizona Law, and ERISA

¶11           Wife claims the QDRO is invalid because it violates Arizona
and California law, as well as ERISA. Wife fails to adequately cite to the
record or to any legal authority to support her argument that the QDRO
violates Arizona or California law. See ARCAP 13(a)(7). We have found no
such authority, and we decline to address this argument further.

¶12           Wife’s ERISA claim is similarly unavailing. Under 29 U.S.C.
§§ 1001-1461, state courts may assign benefits through QDROs if the orders
meet the requirements listed in 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(C), by clearly
specifying:

      (i)     the name and the last known mailing address (if any)
              of the participant and the name and mailing address of
              each alternate payee covered by the order,

      (ii)    the amount or percentage of the participant’s benefits
              to be paid by the plan to each such alternate payee, or
              the manner in which such amount or percentage is to
              be determined,

      (iii)   the number of payments or period to which such order
              applies, and

      (iv)    each plan to which such order applies.

Here, the QDRO complies with the ERISA requirements. The QDRO
contains Husband’s and Wife’s names and mailing addresses, the
percentage of Wife’s benefits to be paid to Husband, the number of
payments to Husband, and each plan from which Husband is eligible to
receive benefits. The record does not support Wife’s generalized claim that
the QDRO violates ERISA.

      C.      Marital Validity, Community Property, and Bias

                                     4
                             LESLIE v. LESLIE
                            Decision of the Court

¶13            Wife next argues the QDRO is void because the superior court
entered it without first finding the parties’ marriage valid. This argument
fails because Wife’s challenges to the validity of the marriage are precluded.
See ¶ 7 supra. Wife also argues the QDRO is void because the court did not
“establish the community property rights” before entering the QDRO. But
after the contested divorce trial, the court made specific community
property findings in the decree, which the QDRO properly follows. We will
not disturb a QDRO’s apportionment of assets absent a showing of abuse
of discretion, Boncoskey, 216 Ariz. at 451, ¶ 13, and here there has been no
such showing.

¶14            Wife also generally alleges the superior court judge was
biased against her. A party challenging a judge’s impartiality must
overcome the presumption that judges are “free of bias and prejudice,” State
v. Rossi, 154 Ariz. 245, 247 (1987), and must “set forth a specific basis for the
claim of partiality and prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the
judge is biased or prejudiced,” State v. Medina, 193 Ariz. 504, 510, ¶ 11
(1999). “Judicial rulings alone do not support a finding of bias or partiality
without a showing of an extrajudicial source of bias or a deep-seated
favoritism.” Stagecoach Trails MHC, L.L.C. v. City of Benson, 232 Ariz. 562,
568, ¶ 21 (App. 2013). Wife fails to cite to any specific instances of alleged
judicial bias in the record; our independent review of the record reveals
none. Thus, Wife has not established judicial bias.

                               CONCLUSION

¶15           We affirm the superior court’s rulings rejecting Wife’s
arguments regarding the QDRO that apportioned community assets
between the parties. Husband requests his attorneys’ fees and costs on
appeal. We have considered the relative financial resources of the parties
and the reasonableness of the positions asserted on appeal. See A.R.S. § 25-
324(A). In the exercise of our discretion, we award Husband reasonable
attorneys’ fees and costs on appeal, upon compliance with ARCAP 21.

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

                                         5