Zennaro v. Zennaro

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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:

JUDITH BRYSON ZENNARO, Petitioner/Appellee,

v.

BRUNO ZENNARO, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CV 23-0334 FC
FILED 05-23-2024

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. FN2021-001466
The Honorable Amy Michelle Kalman, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Schmidt McElwee & Gordon, PLLC, Phoenix
By Tracy Gordon
Co-Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee

Mark J. DePasquale, PC, Phoenix
By Mark J. DePasquale
Co-Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee

Maxwell Law Group, Mesa
By April Maxwell
Counsel for Respondent/Appellant
 ZENNARO v. ZENNARO
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Acting Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Chief Judge David B. Gass
joined.

W E I N Z W E I G, Judge:

¶1 Bruno Zennaro (“Husband”) appeals the superior court’s
dissolution decree ending his marriage to Judith Bryson Zennaro (“Wife”).
Husband challenges the court’s characterization of property and finding of
no community lien. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Husband and Wife married in 2002. The couple lived in
California for over a decade in a house that Wife inherited. Husband signed
a disclaimer deed for that house in 2006, which clarified the California
house was Wife’s sole and separate property.

¶3 Husband and Wife kept their finances separate because,
according to Wife, “[Husband] couldn’t handle money.” To that end, Wife
opened her own bank account (“Bank Account”), where she deposited her
retirement benefits and business income. Husband paid Wife at least $500
per month for his medical insurance, which she deposited into the Bank
Account.

The Condo

¶4 Wife purchased a condominium (“Condo”) in 2010 for
$69,900. Her son (“Son”) from an earlier relationship gifted her $75,000 on
the day she signed the purchase contract, which he withdrew from his bank
account. Wife used Son’s gift to fund the purchase price and $5,100 in fees
associated with the sale. Wife took title directly from the previous seller
and the deed did not characterize the Condo as community or separate
property, or state that Wife was married. Wife then rented the Condo to
renters and deposited the rental income into her Bank Account.

2
 ZENNARO v. ZENNARO
Decision of the Court

The Scottsdale Home

¶5 Wife sold the California house in 2013 and used some of the
sale proceeds for a down payment on a home in Scottsdale (“Scottsdale
Home”). She deposited the remaining proceeds into her Bank Account.
Wife took title to the Scottsdale Home in her name. Husband again signed
a disclaimer deed to show the Scottsdale Home was Wife’s sole and
separate property.

¶6 Wife got a mortgage on the Scottsdale Home, and used her
Bank Account to make the monthly payments. In 2018, Wife conveyed the
Scottsdale Home to Son, who assumed the mortgage. But Husband and
Wife lived in the Scottsdale Home until Wife filed for divorce in April 2021.

¶7 Husband was diagnosed with dementia in 2021, and the
superior court appointed his son from a prior relationship to serve as his
Guardian and Conservator (“Guardian”).

¶8 In 2023, the superior court held an evidentiary hearing to
determine whether the Scottsdale Home and Condo were separate or
community property. Based on the evidence, the court ruled (1) the
Scottsdale Home was Wife’s separate property, (2) the Condo was Wife’s
separate property, and (3) the community had no equitable lien on either
property. The court also found that Wife’s Bank Account was her separate
property at all times and no community funds were used to pay for either
the Condo or Scottsdale Home.

¶9 Husband timely appealed the divorce decree. We have
jurisdiction. See Ariz. Const. art. VI, § 9; A.R.S. §§ 12-2101(A)(1), and
-120.21(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶10 Husband argues that (1) the Condo is either community
property or the community is entitled to an equitable lien on the Condo, (2)
the community is entitled to an equitable lien on the Scottsdale Home, and
(3) the court erroneously excluded his evidence. We consider each
argument in turn.

I. The Condo

¶11 We review de novo whether property is separate or
community property. In re Marriage of Pownall, 197 Ariz. 577, 581, ¶ 15
(App. 2000). Property acquired during marriage is presumed to be

3
 ZENNARO v. ZENNARO
Decision of the Court

community property unless acquired by inheritance or gift. A.R.S. §§ 25-
211(A), -213(A). The spouse who contends that property acquired during
marriage is separate property must prove so by clear and convincing
evidence. Schickner v. Schickner, 237 Ariz. 194, 199, ¶ 22 (App. 2015). We
view the evidence in the light most favorable to supporting the superior
court’s decision, Walsh v. Walsh, 230 Ariz. 486, 490, ¶ 9 (App. 2012), and
uphold its decision if supported by substantial evidence, Est. of Page v.
Litzenburg, 177 Ariz. 84, 92 (App. 1993).

¶12 The superior court held the Condo was Wife’s separate
property because Son gifted her the purchase price. We agree. The record
includes substantial evidence showing that Son gifted $75,000 to Wife on
the purchase date and Wife used that sum to acquire the Condo and cover
ancillary expenses. Both Wife and Son testified to this arrangement. Son
also offered a bank statement showing he withdrew $75,000 in cash from
his bank account on the day Wife signed the purchase contract. See O’Hair
v. O’Hair, 109 Ariz. 236, 239–40 (1973) (a gift requires donative intent by
donor, and delivery to and acceptance by the donee); Armer v. Armer, 105
Ariz. 284, 289 (1970) (less evidence is required to show a gift between a
parent and child).

¶13 Husband argues that Wife did not rebut the presumption of
community property with clear and convincing evidence because Husband
previously disclaimed separate properties to Wife, but he did not disclaim
the Condo. We defer to the superior court’s judgment to the extent its
rulings are based on the weight of conflicting evidence. Gutierrez v.
Gutierrez, 193 Ariz. 343, 347–48, ¶ 13 (App. 1998).

¶14 Husband also argues the court erroneously found that “[Son]
conveyed the [Condo] to wife through a quit claim deed.” We agree. The
record does not show that Son quitclaimed the Condo to Wife; instead, the
deed shows that Wife acquired the Condo directly from its previous owner.
Even so, the court properly characterized the Condo as Wife’s separate
property.

¶15 Because Wife purchased the Condo with Son’s gift of $75,000
and she took title in her name alone, we affirm the superior court’s
characterization of the Condo as Wife’s sole and separate property. Horton
v. Horton, 35 Ariz. 378, 380–82 (1929); Noble v. Noble, 26 Ariz. App. 89, 96
(1976).

4
 ZENNARO v. ZENNARO
Decision of the Court

II. Commingled Bank Account

¶16 Husband argues Wife’s Bank Account should be
characterized as community property because it contains commingled
funds. The party seeking to establish the separate character of commingled
property must do so by clear and convincing evidence. Franklin v. Franklin, 75 Ariz. 151, 155 (1953).

¶17 Husband argues Wife’s Bank Account was “inextricably
comingled” because it included (1) rental income from Wife’s Condo, (2)
Husband’s monthly contributions of $500 for medical insurance, and (3)
Wife’s small business income and her retirement benefits. We are not
persuaded.

¶18 First, any rental payments on Wife’s separate property are
still her separate property. A.R.S. § 25-213(A) (rental income from separate
property remains separate property).

¶19 Second, a commingled separate bank account only becomes a
community bank account if the separate property funds are no longer
traceable. Noble, 26 Ariz. App. at 95–96. There is no evidence in the record
that Wife’s Bank Account was “treated as community property without
segregation,” Blaine v. Blaine, 63 Ariz. 100, 109 (1945), or that separate and
community funds were “so mixed together that a court is unable to tell how
much money was originally separate and how much was originally
community,” Potthoff v. Potthoff, 128 Ariz. 557, 562 (App. 1981). At most,
Husband showed he paid Wife $500 per month for his medical insurance.

¶20 Third, the parties stipulated that the parties’ retirement
benefits are each their separate property.

¶21 Fourth, the only income otherwise earned during their almost
20-year marriage was Wife’s hobby business of making and selling stuffed
bears. Those earnings were community property, but the evidence shows
that Wife’s earnings were de minimis. Because this amount was de minimis
and traceable, Wife met her burden of showing no community funds were
used to pay for her separate property. Viewing these facts in the light most
favorable to upholding the superior court’s ruling, Walsh, 230 Ariz. at 490,
¶ 9, we affirm because we see no other sources of community funds in
Wife’s Bank Account.

5
 ZENNARO v. ZENNARO
Decision of the Court

III. Community Lien

¶22 Husband next argues the community should have received an
equitable lien on the Scottsdale Home and the Condo. A marital
community is entitled to reimbursement for its contributions to a spouse’s
separate property. Saba v. Khoury, 253 Ariz. 587, 590, ¶ 8 (2022). The right
to reimbursement is secured by an equitable lien on the separate property.
Id. The existence and value of a community lien is a mixed question of law
and fact, which we review for an abuse of discretion and will uphold unless
clearly erroneous or unsupported by credible evidence. Valento v. Valento, 225 Ariz. 477, 481, ¶ 11 (App. 2010). Wife has the burden to prove that only
separate funds were used to pay for both properties. Drahos v. Rens, 149
Ariz. 248, 251 (App. 1985).

¶23 Wife met her burden to show that her separate funds were
used to purchase the Condo and no community contributions were made.
Wife paid for the Condo with separate funds gifted by Son. No mortgage
was taken on the property. Indeed, Husband’s Guardian conceded there
was no evidence of a community contribution. Wife testified that she paid
for minor repairs to the Condo with the rental income and Husband did not
contribute.

¶24 Husband likewise argues the community is entitled to an
equitable lien on the Scottsdale Home, but the record shows otherwise. The
record shows that Wife paid the down payment with separate funds from
the sale of her California property, and she paid the mortgage with separate
funds from her Bank Account, which was her separate property. Wife later
transferred the Scottsdale Home to Son, who assumed the mortgage but
permitted Husband and Wife to live in the home. What is more, Husband
signed a disclaimer deed to the Scottsdale Home and his Guardian
conceded there was no evidence of a community contribution.

¶25 We affirm the superior court’s finding that Husband was not
entitled to an equitable lien on the Condo or Scottsdale Home.

IV. Evidentiary Rulings

¶26 We review the superior court’s evidentiary rulings for an
abuse of discretion, Woyton v. Ward, 247 Ariz. 529, 533, ¶ 14 (App. 2019),
and will not reverse unless the court incorrectly applied the law, resulting
in unfair prejudice, Coleman v. Amon, 252 Ariz. 107, 110, ¶ 5 (App. 2021).

¶27 Husband argues the superior court erroneously “blocked”
Husband’s Guardian from testifying about Husband’s litigation positions

6
 ZENNARO v. ZENNARO
Decision of the Court

because Guardian lacked personal knowledge under Rule 602, but still
permitted Wife to ask Guardian about those positions.

¶28 We are not persuaded. First, Husband points to no specific
evidentiary ruling and instead offers a general argument that the court
inconsistently required the witness to have personal knowledge. See Ariz.
R. Evid. 602 and 103; see also State v. Towery, 186 Ariz. 168, 179 (1996)
(requiring the proponent of precluded testimony “to make the offer of proof
so that the reviewing court can determine whether the trial judge erred in
precluding the evidence”).

¶29 Second, Husband cites no authority for his argument that
personal knowledge is not required of a Guardian or Conservator who
testifies on behalf of an incapacitated person. See Ruvalcaba By & Through
Stubblefield v. Ruvalcaba, 174 Ariz. 436, 444–45 (App. 1993) (citing Rule 602
and holding that a “guardian . . . as well as others with knowledge, may
testify as to statements made” by an incompetent person prior to their
incapacitation).

¶30 Third, Husband has not explained how he was unfairly
prejudiced, Coleman, 252 Ariz. at 110, ¶ 5, or how the error affected his
substantial rights, Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 86 (“At every stage of the
proceeding, the court must disregard all errors and defects that do not affect
any party’s substantial rights.”). We discern no abuse of discretion.

CONCLUSION

¶31 We affirm. Wife requested attorney fees and costs under
ARCAP 21 and A.R.S. § 25-324. After considering the financial resources of
both parties and the reasonableness of Husband’s positions on appeal, we
decline to award attorney fees. Wife is entitled to costs upon compliance
with ARCAP 21.

AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
FILED: AGFV

7