LOPEZ v. MEJIA
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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 the Matter of: LORENA LOPEZ, Petitioner/Appellant, v. MANUEL MEJIA, Respondent/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV 20-0558 FC FILED 6-8-2021 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. FC2016-070840 The Honorable J. Justin McGuire, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED COUNSEL Lorena Lopez, Buckeye Petitioner/Appellant LOPEZ v. MEJIA Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge David B. Gass delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge David D. Weinzweig joined. G A S S, Judge: ¶1 Lorena Lopez challenges the superior court’s order terminating a spousal maintenance order entered in 2016. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Wife petitioned to dissolve the parties’ marriage. The superior court entered a decree in September 2016 obligating Manuel Mejia to pay $3,000.00 in monthly spousal maintenance for four years starting on October 1, 2016. The superior court entered an income withholding order with a presumptive termination date of September 30, 2020. ¶3 Husband petitioned to modify the income withholding order in July 2020, contending his “[f]irst [spousal maintenance] payment was made on 9/7/2016” and “seeking any overpayment refund.” Wife opposed the petition, contending she did not receive the first payment until October 4, 2016, and the “[l]ast payment is scheduled for September 30, 2020.” Following an evidentiary hearing the superior court granted husband’s petition and terminated the spousal maintenance order as of August 28, 2020. ¶4 Wife moved for reconsideration, arguing the superior court relied on an incorrect arrears calculation report and she was still owed $1,480.55. The superior court denied the motion. ¶5 Wife timely appealed. This court has jurisdiction under article VI, section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and A.R.S. § 12-120.21.A.1. ANALYSIS ¶6 This court reviews the ruling on husband’s petition for an abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Priessman, 228 Ariz. 336, 338, ¶ 7 (App. 2011). 2 LOPEZ v. MEJIA Decision of the Court ¶7 Wife argues the superior court applied an erroneous arrears calculation report. She cites no record evidence to support her argument and did not provide a transcript of the evidentiary hearing. An appellant contending a conclusion is unsupported by or contrary to the evidence “must include in the record transcripts of all proceedings containing evidence relevant to that . . . conclusion.” ARCAP 11(c)(1)(B). Because wife did not provide the necessary record documents, we presume the evidence presented at the hearing supported the superior court’s findings and conclusions. See Hefner v. Hefner, 248 Ariz. 54, 60, ¶ 19 (App. 2019). CONCLUSION ¶8 We affirm the superior court’s order. We decline to award attorney fees or costs because husband did not file an answering brief. AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court FILED: AA 3
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.
