In re Koester, 011019 AZAPP1, 1 CA-CV 18-0084 FC
|Docket Nº:||1 CA-CV 18-0084 FC|
|Opinion Judge:||CATTANI, JUDGE.|
|Party Name:||In re the Matter of: MARVIN JAMES KOESTER, Petitioner/Appellant, v. WENDY FILLMORE, Respondent/Appellee.|
|Attorney:||Marvin James Koester, Phoenix Petitioner/Appellant Weiss-Riner Law PLC, Scottsdale By James E. Riner, Melissa Weiss-Riner Counsel for Respondent/Appellee|
|Judge Panel:||Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Judge Paul J. McMurdie joined.|
|Case Date:||January 10, 2019|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Arizona|
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. FN2016-052844 The Honorable Joseph C. Kreamer, Judge
Marvin James Koester, Phoenix Petitioner/Appellant
Weiss-Riner Law PLC, Scottsdale By James E. Riner, Melissa Weiss-Riner Counsel for Respondent/Appellee
Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Judge Paul J. McMurdie joined.
¶1 Marvin Koester ("Husband") appeals the dissolution decree dissolving his marriage to Wendy Fillmore ("Wife"). For reasons that follow, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶2 Husband and Wife married in April 2006. Husband and Wife had disparate earning capabilities, with Husband working as a union plumber for more than $35.00 per hour, while Wife worked as a caregiver for minimum wage. They maintained a moderate standard of living during the marriage, but to pay their bills, they often sold personal items and took funds from Husband's retirement account. Husband continued this pattern after service of the divorce petition, and he sold and kept the proceeds of over $13, 000 of community property without informing Wife.
¶3 In November 2016, Husband served Wife with the petition for dissolution, and in December 2017, the superior court conducted an evidentiary hearing. The superior court awarded Wife spousal maintenance of $500 per month for three years, but denied her request for attorney's fees, noting that neither party had substantial financial resources. The superior court ordered that the parties' community property be divided as follows: (1) one horse to Husband and two horses to Wife; (2) a truck with equity of $15, 000 to Wife and a truck with negative equity of $9, 000 to Husband; and (3) a two-horse trailer to Husband and a four-horse trailer to Wife. Husband and Wife were to keep all other community property in their possession, including the amount Husband had received from the sale of community assets. The court also awarded Wife two bank accounts with minimal amounts and...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP