Jones v. Jones, 1 CA-CV 21-0448-FC

Background:

Randy and Jennifer Jones married in 2006 and share one minor child; Randy filed for dissolution in 2016.
After mediation the parties executed a Rule 69 financial settlement agreement dividing property, debts, spousal maintenance, attorneys’ fees, and insurance obligations.
The superior court initially refused Husband’s request for a fairness hearing; this court (Jones I) vacated and remanded for an independent substantive-fairness hearing.
At the 2021 hearing the court received extensive documentary and expert evidence (tax returns, bank statements, appraisals, valuations, deeds, expert testimony); Husband testified he had access to and knowledge of the information before signing but disputed how the court would rule on character of assets.
The superior court issued detailed findings concluding the Agreement was not substantively unfair because (1) each party received most assets they claimed as separate, (2) Husband negotiated with full knowledge of character/value, and (3) the equalization payment reasonably reflected Wife’s concessions (surrender of community lien, transmutation, and maintenance claims).
Husband appealed; this Court affirmed and awarded Wife reasonable appellate attorneys’ fees.

Issues:

Issue	Husband's Argument	Wife's Argument	Held
Whether the court must perform a full, independent property-division calculation separate from the Rule 69 agreement when assessing fairness	Court must conduct a complete property-division assessment and compare it to the Agreement	Court’s duty is limited to an independent fairness determination based on the record showing parties’ knowledge and circumstances	The court will not impose a separate full-division requirement; statutory scheme requires only an independent fairness review
Whether the record provided sufficient evidence to permit an independent substantive-fairness determination	Record lacked sufficient evidence to assess fairness without a hearing	Record (documents and expert testimony) supplied sufficient evidence of asset character and value	Sufficient competent evidence existed; no abuse of discretion
Whether the Agreement mischaracterized assets and whether the court erred in discounting Husband’s tracing analysis	Agreement mischaracterized property; tracing analysis supported separate-property claims and required greater weight	Court properly evaluated competing evidence and credibility; Husband knew property character when signing	Court found Husband’s claims lacked credibility and was entitled to weigh evidence; no error
Whether Wife is entitled to appellate attorneys’ fees	(implicit) Husband opposed fees	Wife sought fees based on parties’ resources and the reasonableness of the appeal	Court awarded Wife reasonable appellate attorneys’ fees under ARCAP 21

Key Cases Cited

In re Marriage of Flower, 223 Ariz. 531 (App. 2010) (standard for reviewing property distribution)
Hurd v. Hurd, 223 Ariz. 48 (App. 2009) (abuse of discretion where record lacks competent evidence)
Hammett v. Hammett, 247 Ariz. 556 (App. 2019) (abuse of discretion includes misapplication of law)
Castro v. Ballesteros-Suarez, 222 Ariz. 48 (App. 2009) (review construes evidence in favor of affirmance; no reweighing)
Buckholtz v. Buckholtz, 246 Ariz. 126 (App. 2019) (Rule 69 agreements presumed valid; court must ensure parties had full knowledge of property character)
Hart v. Hart, 220 Ariz. 183 (App. 2009) (court will not judicially impose requirements the legislature omitted)