Fuller v. Fuller
1 CA-CV 15-0680-FC
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Aug 23, 2016Background
- Parties: Stephen R. Fuller (Husband/appellee) and Angela D. Fuller (Wife/appellant); married 15 years and divorced in 2015.
- Property division: parties agreed under Rule 69 to divide personal property, debt, assign vehicles, and sell the marital home; Wife kept a premarital IRA as separate property.
- Family court awards: equal split of home-sale proceeds; Wife awarded two retirement accounts earned during the marriage; Wife awarded portion of attorney fees; Husband received no spousal maintenance obligation.
- Wife’s financial situation: employed full time in a school district earning $47,000/year; holds a separate retirement (~$159,000), two retirement accounts (~$25k–$28k), $10k–$11k vehicle equity, and $15k–$20k from home sale.
- Procedural posture: Wife appealed solely the denial of her request for spousal maintenance ($1,200/month for six years); appellate court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Wife's Argument | Husband's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wife lacks sufficient property to meet reasonable needs under A.R.S. §25-319(A)(1) | Wife: She lacks sufficient property to provide for reasonable needs | Husband: Wife received substantial assets and retirement accounts enabling self-support | Court: Denial affirmed — evidence shows Wife has sufficient property |
| Whether Wife is unable to be self-sufficient through appropriate employment under §25-319(A)(2) | Wife: Lacks earning ability adequate for self-sufficiency | Husband: Wife is employed and earning $47,000, demonstrating ability to be self-sufficient | Court: Denial affirmed — Wife employed with stable income |
| Whether Wife’s age and marriage duration preclude ability to gain adequate employment under §25-319(A)(4) | Wife: 15-year marriage and age 53 may preclude adequate employment | Husband: Prior work history and current employment rebut incapacity concerns | Court: Denial affirmed — factors do not show inability to be self-sufficient |
| Attorney’s fees on appeal under A.R.S. §25-324 | Wife: Requests attorney’s fees on appeal | Husband: Did not file brief | Court: Fees denied in discretion, but costs on appeal awarded if ARCAP 21 complied with |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Berger, 140 Ariz. 156 (1983) (standard: appellate review of maintenance is for abuse of discretion)
- Leathers v. Leathers, 216 Ariz. 374 (2007) (court will affirm if reasonable evidence supports the ruling)
- Boyle v. Boyle, 231 Ariz. 63 (2012) (spousal maintenance may be awarded if any enumerated statutory ground is met)
- Michaelson v. Garr, 234 Ariz. 542 (2014) (failure to file an answering brief is not treated as confession of error in the court's discretion)
- Thomas v. Thomas, 142 Ariz. 386 (1984) (appellate courts may infer necessary findings when supported by the record and not inconsistent with express findings)