Arora v. Arora
1 CA-CV 16-0354-FC
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Mar 7, 2017Background
- Laurie (Wife) and Rajeev Arora (Husband) divorced after a 23-year marriage; all issues resolved pre-trial except spousal maintenance and attorney fees.
- Wife sought $4,500–$5,000/month in maintenance for eight years, citing physical limitations that restrict full-time work; Husband contested entitlement and claimed Wife’s expenses and hours were unreasonable.
- At trial Wife testified she is a licensed physical therapist earning about $40/hour and working between 20–32 hours/week; she was undergoing insurer credentialing aiming to increase to 32 hours/week and an annualized income > $5,500/month.
- Wife alleged pain and numbness that limit her ability to work long hours; the court found she has limited earning potential but did not find she is incapable of self-support through appropriate employment.
- The superior court awarded Wife $3,000/month spousal maintenance for four years; Wife appealed solely challenging amount and duration.
Issues
| Issue | Wife's Argument | Husband's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the superior court abused its discretion in amount/duration of spousal maintenance | Court failed to properly account for Wife’s physical limitations and reduced hours; award insufficient in amount and too short in duration | Court’s award is supported by evidence Wife can increase hours/earnings and the court properly considered statutory factors | Affirmed — appellate court defers to trial court’s balancing; competent evidence supports $3,000/month for four years |
| Whether the court ignored evidence about need to retrain/seek less demanding work | Wife argued retraining time and physical restrictions require longer maintenance | Husband argued Wife planned to credential and increase hours; no evidence she cannot work 32 hrs/week | Trial court considered retraining and allowed four years to secure training/employment; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Leathers v. Leathers, 216 Ariz. 374 (App. 2007) (standard: spousal maintenance reviewed for abuse of discretion; affirm if any reasonable evidence supports award)
- Quigley v. City Court, 132 Ariz. 35 (App. 1982) (difference in judicial opinion is not abuse of discretion)
- Stevenson v. Stevenson, 132 Ariz. 44 (1982) (appellate court will affirm maintenance award if any reasonable construction of evidence justifies it)
- Rainwater v. Rainwater, 177 Ariz. 500 (App. 1993) (court’s balancing of statutory factors reviewed deferentially)