Cason v. Cason
Decision Date | 25 February 2016 |
Docket Number | No. 1 CA-CV 14-0351 FC,1 CA-CV 14-0351 FC |
Parties | In re the Marriage of: BOBBY G. CASON, Petitioner/Appellee, v. KRISTIN L. CASON, Respondent/Appellant. |
Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
The Honorable Emmet J. Ronan, Retired Judge
AFFIRMED
Wilkins Law Firm PLLC, Phoenix
By Amy M. Wilkins, Heather Coe-Smith
Kristin L. Cason, Queen Creek
Respondent/Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISIONJudge Kenton D. Jones delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen and Judge Patricia A. Orozco joined.
¶1 Kristin Cason (Wife) appeals the division of property in the decree of dissolution of her marriage to Bobby Cason (Husband). For the following reasons, we affirm.
¶2 In January 2006, Wife purchased real property in Queen Creek, and the parties founded a business, Silver Linings Hunters and Jumpers (Silver Linings), for the purpose of raising, training, and boarding horses. Husband and Wife were married in April 2006 and began living at and operating Silver Linings from the Queen Creek property. At the time of their marriage, Wife also owned real property in Gilbert.
¶3 Over the next six years, Husband made improvements to both properties, paid utility bills, and worked twenty to thirty hours per week for the business. Meanwhile, Wife comingled business funds, rental income from the Gilbert property, and community income in accounts held by Silver Linings, which she used for business, personal, and community expenses, including the mortgages on both properties.
¶4 The parties separated in July 2010 and pursued counseling. Although Husband was removed from Silver Linings' bank account and did not receive any distributions from the business after July 2010, he continued to work for Silver Linings until Wife obtained an order of protection in July 2012. Husband thereafter filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in October 2012.
¶5 During the course of discovery, the family court ordered the parties to complete a business valuation of Silver Linings; Wife refused. In March 2013, Husband filed a motion to compel Wife to respond to "standard" discovery requests, including requests for production of bank statements, business records, and mortgage information, which the court granted after Wife openly admitted in her response that she "refuse[d] to share any documents or related items." Wife did not comply. Following a settlement conference in June 2013, the parties agreed Husband would pay for appraisals of the Queen Creek and Gilbert properties, subject to reallocation of the cost at trial, and Wife would permit the appraiser access to the properties. However, Wife did not cooperate, and the appraisals were not completed by the start of trial. Wife had also agreed to disclose the accounting files for Silver Linings, as well as invoices and receipts to support the asserted debts and expenses of the business. Instead, Wife gave Husband summaries of her business activities, without any supporting documentation.
¶6 The family court held a two-day trial in August and November 2013. After taking the matter under advisement, the court entered a final decree of dissolution. Within the decree, the family court expressed its difficulty in valuing Husband's interest in the community assets as a result of Wife's refusal to participate in the discovery process, stating:
¶7 The family court awarded Husband: (1) a community interest in the value of Silver Linings in the amount of $94,184; (2) a lien against the Queen Creek property in the amount of $57,546; and (3) one-half of the amount paid toward the mortgage for the Gilbert property during the parties' marriage. Wife filed a motion for new trial, which was denied. Wife timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) sections 12-120.21(A)(1),2 -2101(A)(1) and (A)(5)(a).
¶8 Wife argues the family court's valuation of Silver Linings was arbitrary and did not take into account the business expenses and tax returns or her own testimony regarding its finances. "'The valuation of assets is a factual determination that must be based on the facts and circumstances of each case' . . . and [we] 'will not disturb [the] trial court's factual findings unless clearly erroneous.'" Walsh v. Walsh, 230 Ariz. 486, 490, ¶ 9 (App. 2012) ( ). A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when "'the reviewing court on the entire record is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.'" Park Cent. Dev. Co. v. Roberts Dry Goods, Inc., 11 Ariz. App. 58, 60 (1969) (quoting Merryweather v. Pendleton, 91 Ariz. 334, 338 (1962)). On this record, we find no error.
¶9 After concluding Silver Linings was a community business, the family court admitted "[t]he lack of documentation . . . make[s] it impossible to arrive at any type of accurate assessment of business income." Because Wife did not present any evidence to support her claims, the court considered Husband's request that he instead be awarded "one half of the funds that were received from the business from the time of the parties' separation in August 2010 until 2013 as his interest in the business," in the amount of $188,432.44. To support this request, Husband submitted statements for two accounts in the name of Silver Linings that received deposits of more than $480,000 between August 2010 and 2013.
¶10 In reaching its decision, the family court explained:
The figures presented by [Husband] from a review of the bank accounts reflect business "deposits". They do not account for any reasonable business expenses that would necessarily [have] been deducted from the receipts in order to determine the business income. . . . However, common sense tells you that the "receipt" figure is not the income that was received by the business.
The court awarded Husband "a community interest in the value of the business" in the amount of one-half of what he requested — $94,184. In doing so, the court apparently estimated, absent evidence from Wife as to the actual value of Silver Linings' expenses, that half of the business's income was used to pay expenses.3 See Murren v. Murren, 191 Ariz. 335, 337, ¶ 8 (App. 1998) () (quoting Crye v. Edwards, 178 Ariz. 327, 328 (App. 1993)). It then divided the remaining amount — Silver Linings' profits — equally between the parties.
¶11 The family court has discretion to rely on various methods of valuation. See Kelsey, 186 Ariz. at 51 ( )(citing Maricopa Cnty. v. Barkley, 168 Ariz. 234, 239 (App. 1990)); see also Gutierrez, 193 Ariz. at 347-48 ( ). Here, although not calculated via a traditional method of business valuation, the figure the family court arrived at is supported by Husband's testimony and evidence, and therefore, cannot be arbitrary.4 See United Cal. Bank v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 140 Ariz. 238, 304 (App. 1983) (); Moore v. Title Ins. Co. of Minn., 148 Ariz. 408, 413 (App. 1985) ().
¶12 Although Wife may have presented some evidence and testimony suggesting a different valuation,5 we find no fault with the familycourt's approach under the circumstances and will not second-guess its determination of witness credibility and the weight given to conflicting evidence. Gutierrez, 193 Ariz. at 347-48 (citing Premier Fin. Servs. v. Citibank (Ariz.), 185 Ariz. 80, 85 (App. 1995)). This is particularly true because the lack of...
To continue reading
Request your trial