THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED
EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c);
Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF ARIZONA
In re the Matter of:
RUTH A. WILLINGHAM,
No. 1 CA-CV 10-0615
(Not for Publication Rule 28, Arizona Rules
of Civil Appellate
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
Cause No. FC 2009-004027
The Honorable M. Scott McCoy, Judge
Respondent/Appellant In Propria Persona
Petitioner/Appellee In Propria Persona
D O W N I E, Judge
Noel Kando (“Husband”) challenges the family court’s
award of spousal maintenance to Doreen Kando (“Wife”).
requests “full custody” of the parties’ minor daughter.
following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1
three children, one of whom is a minor.
Wife filed for divorce
translator, earning more than $150,000 per year.
job in August 2009 to return to Arizona.
at the time of the dissolution trial.
He left that
Husband was unemployed
Before working in Iraq,
Husband was an engineer in the United States, making $72,000 per
Wife is a hair stylist and earns roughly $10 an hour.
Wife sought sole legal custody of the parties’ minor child, with
liberal parenting time for Husband.
Husband requested joint
After a trial, the family court issued a decree of
It made detailed findings regarding the statutory
factors relevant to spousal maintenance and child custody.
court awarded Wife spousal maintenance of $750 per month for 132
months and awarded the parties joint custody of their daughter.
We view the evidence in the light most favorable to
affirming the family court’s ruling.
Thomas v. Thomas, 142
Ariz. 386, 390, 690 P.2d 105, 109 (App. 1984).
Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 12-2101(B)
record or legal authority.
We thus could consider his arguments
13(a)(6) (a brief shall contain arguments
with citations to authorities, statutes, and parts of the record
relied upon); Ritchie v. Krasner, 221 Ariz. 288, 305, ¶ 62, 211
P.3d 1272, 1289 (App. 2009) (failure to support arguments with
legal authority may constitute abandonment and waiver of that
Notwithstanding the inadequacy of Husband’s briefing,
we will briefly address the family court’s spousal maintenance
and custody orders.
Husband appears to challenge both Wife’s entitlement
to spousal maintenance and the amount of the award.
the family court’s award of spousal maintenance for an abuse of
Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, 193 Ariz. 343, 348, ¶ 14,
972 P.2d 676, 681 (App. 1998).
We will affirm the award if
there is any reasonable evidence to support it.
required to establish one of four statutory factors: (1) that
her, to meet her reasonable needs; (2) that she is unable to
ability to obtain adequate employment; (3) that she contributed
to the educational opportunities of Husband; or (4) that she had
a marriage of long duration and is of an age which may preclude
her from gaining suitable employment.
A.R.S. § 25-319(A)(1-4).
maintenance, the court must then consider the factors enumerated
in A.R.S. § 25-319(B) in setting the amount and duration of the
The family court has “substantial discretion to set the
Rainwater, 177 Ariz. 500, 502, 869 P.2d 176, 178 (App. 1993).
Husband has not provided this Court with a transcript
of the dissolution trial.
In the absence of a transcript, we
must assume that the evidence offered at trial supported the
Baker, 183 Ariz. 70, 73, 900 P.2d 764, 767 (App. 1995) (when a
party fails to include entire record on appeal, appellate court
assumes the missing portions would support the trial court’s
findings and conclusions).
The family court fulfilled its statutory obligations.
It found, pursuant to § 25-319(A), that Wife “lacks sufficient
statutory factors that are relevant to the amount and duration
of the spousal maintenance award, making findings as to each.
court abused its considerable discretion in awarding and setting
spousal maintenance. 2
Contrary to Husband’s claim, the family
court specifically considered Husband’s ability to meet his own
financial needs, while also paying maintenance.
order he requested.
To the extent Husband contends that custody
should be modified, he must first litigate that issue in the
For this same reason, we cannot meaningfully review
Husband’s claim that the family court erroneously attributed
income to him.
Courts may attribute income to a spouse in a
dissolution proceeding. See, e.g., Pullen v. Pullen, 223 Ariz.
293, 295-96, ¶ 9, 222 P.3d 909, 911-12 (App. 2009) (listing
factors a court should consider in attributing income).
decree reflects that the family court credited Husband’s
testimony that his work in Iraq was dangerous, giving him good
cause to leave that employment. However, the court found it was
fair to impute annual income of $72,000 to Husband, representing
the salary from his last engineering job.
We affirm the judgment of the superior court.
MARGARET H. DOWNIE, Judge
DIANE M. JOHNSEN, Presiding Judge
JON W. THOMPSON, Judge