Murray v. Murray ( 2024 )

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.
IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE
In re the Marriage of:
DANA CAROL MURRAY, Petitioner/Appellant,
v.
DANIEL RICHARD MURRAY, Respondent/Appellee.
No. 1 CA-CV 23-0342 FC
FILED 02-22-2024
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. FN2022-002968
The Honorable Glenn A. Allen, Judge
VACATED AND REMANDED
COUNSEL
Gillespie Shields & Taylor, Phoenix
By DeeAn Gillespie Strub, Mark A. Shields
Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant
Cordell Law, LLP, Peoria
By Christopher R. Kennedy
Counsel for Respondent/Appellee
MURRAY v. MURRAY
Decision of the Court
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Andrew M. Jacobs and Judge Jennifer M. Perkins joined.
W E I N Z W E I G, Judge:
¶1 Dana Murray (“Wife”) appeals the superior court’s
dissolution decree ending her marriage to Daniel Murray (“Husband”).
She claims the court’s unequal division of the marital home was not
equitable. We agree and thus vacate and remand.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶2 Husband and Wife married in February 2014. About a year
later, they bought a house for $215,000. The couple purchased the house
solely with Husband’s separate property, but titled it as community
property with a right of survivorship. They spent $73,000 of Husband’s
separate property to improve the property throughout the marriage. At the
time of trial, the house was valued at $420,000.
¶3 Wife filed for divorce in July 2022 after eight years of
marriage. The superior court held a trial in March 2023 and entered a
dissolution decree two months later. As relevant to this appeal, the decree
divided the community property unequally. It awarded the house—the
only significant community asset—to Husband and ordered him to pay
Wife an equalization payment of $66,000. As to the house, therefore, the
decree awarded Husband $354,000 of its value against Wife’s $66,000.
¶4 Wife timely appealed. We have jurisdiction. A.R.S. § 12-
2101(A).
DISCUSSION
¶5 Wife argues the superior court abused its discretion by
dividing the community property solely based on reimbursement. We
agree.
¶6 We review the division of community property for an abuse
of discretion. Boncoskey v. Boncoskey, 216 Ariz. 448, 451, ¶ 13 (App. 2007).
An abuse of discretion occurs when there is no competent evidence to
2
MURRAY v. MURRAY
Decision of the Court
support the court’s decision, Little v. Little, 193 Ariz. 518, 520, ¶ 5 (1999), or
when the court makes an error of law in reaching a discretionary decision,
Boyle v. Boyle, 231 Ariz. 63, 65, ¶ 8 (App. 2012).
¶7 Arizona law directs that community property be equitably
divided. A.R.S. § 25-318(A). An equitable division of community property
should be substantially equal absent “sound reason” to do otherwise. Toth
v. Toth, 190 Ariz. 218, 221 (1997).
¶8 When determining whether “sound reason” exists to divide
community property unequally, courts consider statutory factors under
A.R.S. § 25-318(B–C), alongside “all factors that bear on the equities of the
division, including the length of the marriage; the contributions of each
spouse to the community, financial or otherwise; the source of funds used
to acquire the property to be divided; the allocation of debt; as well as any
other factor that may affect the outcome.” In re Marriage of Inboden, 223 Ariz.
542, 547, ¶ 18 (App. 2010).
¶9 Against that backdrop, Arizona courts have upheld unequal
distributions when the marriage in question lasted two weeks, Toth, 190
Ariz. at 221, and when one spouse drained the community to benefit her
separate property, In re Marriage of Flower, 223 Ariz. 531, 538, ¶¶ 28–29
(App. 2010). Courts cannot, however, unequally divide community
property solely to reimburse a spouse for his respective contribution.
Inboden, 223 Ariz. at 547, ¶ 18; see also Toth, 190 Ariz. at 222.
¶10 That happened here. The superior court reimbursed or
“back[ed] out” Husband’s sole and separate contribution to the marital
community, and then divide what remained between the spouses:
To make an equitable distribution of the home’s value, the
purchase price and improvements paid for by Husband’s sole
and separate property must be taken into account and backed
out of the value, leaving the equity of the home at $132,000.00.
Therefore, Wife’s share of the home is $66,000.00.
¶11 The court did not consider all the equitable factors. The
parties were married for eight years. They lived in the family home for
seven of them. Wife did not contribute financially to the community, but
she contributed with her labor by cooking and cleaning throughout the
marriage. The court considered none of this and that was error. See Toth,
190 Ariz. at 222 (“In both cases, as is likely in any real marriage of any
significant duration, other equities made a division based solely on
reimbursement clearly inappropriate.”).
3
MURRAY v. MURRAY
Decision of the Court
CONCLUSION
¶12 We vacate the superior court’s order and remand for further
proceedings consistent with this decision. After considering the
reasonableness of the parties’ positions and their financial resources, we
exercise our discretion to award Wife her attorney fees and costs on appeal
upon compliance with ARCAP 21. See A.R.S. §§ 25-324(A); 12-342(A).
AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
FILED: TM
4