Smith v. Smith
1 CA-CV 21-0300-FC
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Feb 3, 2022Background
- Husband (electrical foreman) and Wife (stay-at-home mother, age 40) separated; Wife sought spousal maintenance. Court awarded Wife $1,500/month for 20 years; Husband appealed.
- Wife testified she is disabled (genetic disorder, spine/hip/heart issues), denied SSDI/SSI to date; her only income is a $1,931/month adoption subsidy for two adopted children.
- Husband’s reported income ranged around $5,120–$5,960/month; he testified he worked overtime but would not continue weekend/overtime work post-separation.
- Parties lived together as a family for over 20 years (married ~10 years but cohabited earlier); decree awarded Wife half of Husband’s 401(k).
- Family court found Wife unable to meet needs without support, Husband able to pay; spousal order modifiable and requires Wife to update AFI if she obtains disability income or subsidized insurance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duration of maintenance | Wife: 20 years appropriate given disability, long-term homemaker role, and future access to retirement. | Husband: Court improperly based 20 years on premarital cohabitation (counting >20 years as "married community"). | Affirmed — court did not abuse discretion; even if referencing pre-marriage cohabitation was error, seven other findings support a 20-year term and no prejudice. |
| Monthly amount ($1,500) | Wife: Needs exceed adoption subsidy; Husband can pay; award necessary for needs. | Husband: Court failed to consider his own financial needs; $1,500 (≈25% of his income) is burdensome. | Affirmed — record contains AFIs, testimony and exhibits; court presumed to have considered payor’s needs; amount is within precedent and is modifiable. |
| Reliance on "de facto married" status for entitlement | Wife: entitlement proper under multiple statutory grounds. | Husband: error to base entitlement on de facto marriage. | Harmless error — court found other statutory bases for maintenance; reversal not required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rainwater v. Rainwater, 177 Ariz. 500 (App. 1993) (family court has substantial discretion in setting spousal maintenance)
- Boyle v. Boyle, 231 Ariz. 63 (App. 2012) (abuse of discretion standard; review for record support)
- Helland v. Helland, 236 Ariz. 197 (App. 2014) (spousal maintenance may be set to bridge until retirement/eligibility for benefits)
- Fuentes v. Fuentes, 209 Ariz. 51 (App. 2004) (presumption that court considered presented financial evidence even if decree lacks detail)
- Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, 193 Ariz. 343 (App. 1998) (spousal maintenance around 25% of husband's income can be proper)
- Walsh v. Walsh, 230 Ariz. 486 (App. 2012) (harmless error standard in family law appeals)