Arai v. Day
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOTICE: 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 DIVISION ONE FILED: 10/20/2011 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: DLL IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE In re the Marriage of: ) ) NOIKO ARAI, ) ) Petitioner/Appellee, ) ) v. ) ) JASON DAY, ) ) Respondent/Appellant. ) ) __________________________________) No. 1 CA-CV 10-0576 DEPARTMENT C MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 28, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. FN2010-000508 The Honorable Robert E. Miles, Judge AFFIRMED Stephen G. Campbell, P.C. By Stephen G. Campbell Attorney for Petitioner/Appellee Phoenix Bill Spence, LTD By William M. Spence Attorney for Respondent/Appellant Chandler B R O W N, Judge ¶1 Jason Day ( Husband ) appeals the trial court s decree of dissolution of marriage, asserting that the court failed to make an equitable distribution of property. For the following reasons, we affirm. BACKGROUND ¶2 Noiko Arai ( Wife ) and Husband were married in 2001. In February 2010, Wife filed a petition for dissolution. During the marriage, the couple acquired various assets, including a house and a car. At the same time, they incurred debts for student loans for Husband s flight school training and for the purchase of the house in 2007. All of the funds used to buy the house were obtained from Wife s parents. Wife received $110,000 from her mother ( Mother ) for the down payment on the home and signed a promissory note and repayment plan for that amount. Husband received $100,000 from Wife s father ( Father ) to help pay off the existing mortgage on the home and promissory note and repayment plan for that amount. signed a Because the couple ultimately purchased a home more expensive than initially planned, Wife received an additional $150,000 from her mother in 2008 to pay promissory off note the for remaining this amount mortgage. and agreed Wife to signed pay a a three- percent interest rate as part of this repayment plan. ¶3 Wife testified that her parents wished to be repaid by deposits into a United States account to avoid international money transfer citizens they fees, were but unable because her to an open 2 parents account are in Japanese the United States. To facilitate repayment, Husband and Wife opened IRA accounts where Husband listed Father as his beneficiary and Wife listed Mother as her beneficiary. ¶4 In 2009, Husband and Wife borrowed $133,000 on a home equity line of credit, using it to buy a Corvette automobile and refinance a prior home equity loan which had been used to pay $93,474.69 for Husband s student loans. Husband later sold the Corvette and retained the $25,500 proceeds. ¶5 At trial, the only contested issues involved how to divide the proceeds from the sale of the Corvette and whether the funds obtained from Wife s parents constituted a gift to the community. marriage The court later issued its decree dissolving the and classifying the approximately from Wife s parents as community debt. house and parents. ordered her responsible for $350,000 received The court gave Wife the the debt owed to her The court allocated the home equity loan to Husband and ordered that the proceeds from the sale of the Corvette be applied toward that debt. Husband timely appealed. DISCUSSION ¶6 Husband argues that the trial court s characterization of the $350,000 provided by the Wife s parents as a loan to the community, rather than as a gift, resulted in an inequitable division of property. We disagree. 3 ¶7 The trial court has broad discretion in apportioning an equitable division of community property between the parties in a dissolution case. Boncoskey v. Boncoskey, 216 Ariz. 448, 451, ¶ 13, 167 P.3d 705, 708 (App. 2007). In reviewing the trial court s apportionment of community property, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the superior court s ruling and will sustain the ruling if it is reasonably supported by the evidence. Id. (citation omitted). We also defer to the trial court s determinations of witness credibility. Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, 193 Ariz. 343, 347, ¶ 13, 972 P.2d 676, 680 (App. 1998). ¶8 To constitute a valid inter vivos gift there must be donative intent, delivery, and the vesting of irrevocable title upon such delivery. Armer v. Armer, 105 Ariz. 284, 289, 463 P.2d 818, 823 (1970) (emphasis added). Wife s testimony and the promissory notes admitted at trial support the conclusion that this was not a gift. Husband and Wife signed separate documents agreeing to repay the money that was transferred to them by Wife s parents. Also, Wife testified that she made payments of $3,100 and $950 directly to Mother in addition to a number of other smaller payments deposited into the IRA accounts. ¶9 Moreover, Husband presented no evidence that either of Wife s parents ever communicated to him or Wife that the money transfers were intended as gifts. 4 The only evidence Husband offered was his own testimony that the retirement accounts were set up with Wife s parents as beneficiaries not to enable repayment of the money, but because the parents wanted Husband and Wife to Husband have also deposited the future that he accounts However, Husband s secure testified into parents. a signature the for did would a not ever $100,000 below [their] retirements. believe be money to paid promissory written the Wife s note assertion shows that the retirement account was opened to facilitate payment to Father. Also, Husband testified that the money for the purchase of their home was borrowed explicitly Husband Wife s from confirmed did not parents. on [Wife s] parents, cross-examination. establish Therefore, there was although any a statement On this donative relatively he record, intent little of by the debt has been repaid, and the repayment schedule has not been strictly followed, the trial court had sufficient evidence before it to determine that the transfer of funds to Husband and Wife for purchase of the house was not a gift. See id. at 288, 463 P.2d at 822 (finding no gift where there was no clear intention on the part of the purported donor). ¶10 After finding that the funds obtained from Wife s parents were a community debt, the trial court allocated the assets and debts. Husband was assigned the home equity loan, offset by the proceeds from the Corvette, and Wife was assigned 5 the remaining debt owed to her parents. Due to recent economic factors, $329,000 the house has devalued from to $242,000. Based on the evidence before it, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its equitable division of the community property. ¶11 Husband comply with argues the that the statutory promissory requirements notes for fail to negotiable instruments and therefore no enforceable obligation exists for repayment of the funds to Wife s parents. He further asserts that the statute of limitations will bar Wife s parents from recovery. Husband, however, did not raise these arguments in the trial court and we decline to consider them. See K.B. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 189 Ariz. 263, 268, 941 P.2d 1288, 1293 (App. 1997) (noting appellate court does not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal ). ¶12 Husband failing to also appoint a argues that translator the to trial interpret court the erred by promissory notes and payment information found in trial Exhibit 6, some of which were written in Japanese. Although Husband s counsel initially objected to the introduction of the documents because some of them were in Japanese, he then commented: Your Honor, it s probably best I [know] less of what it says. Shortly thereafter he to Exhibit. Accordingly, Husband waived his right to challenge told the court I ve 6 got no objection the the admissibility of Exhibit 6 on appeal. See State v. McDaniel, 136 Ariz. 188, 196, 665 P.2d 70, 78 (1983) ( It has long been the law in Arizona that failure to object to an offer of evidence is a waiver of any ground of complaint against its admission. ). ¶13 Both parties have requested attorney s fees pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes section 25-324. we decline to award fees to either party. In our discretion, Wife is entitled to an award of costs upon compliance with Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure 21. CONCLUSION ¶14 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decree of dissolution. /s/ _________________________________ MICHAEL J. BROWN, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ___________________________________ PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Judge /s/ ___________________________________ PHILIP HALL, Judge 7
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
