Cited by

Id.; –93, ¶ 17 (App. 2004).

¶15 Moreover, we have held that trial courts are free to consider several non-dispositive factors when determining financial disparity, including "the relative financial disparity between the parties, the ability of the parties to pay the fees, the ratio of fees owed to assets owed, and 'other similar matters.'" Williams, 219 Ariz. at 550, ¶ 15 ( ¶¶ 17-18 (App. 2004)).

¶16 “[E]ligibility for consideration for an award has consistently rested solely on a comparison of the parties’ resources.” ¶ 12 (App. 2004) (emphasis added).

¶ 8 n.1 (App. 2004) (“[A]n applicant need not show both a financial disparity and an unreasonable opponent in order to qualify for consideration for an award.” (citation omitted)).

Al-Thanayyan, 246 Ariz. at 286, ¶ 30 (“[A]ll a party need show is that a relative financial disparity in income and/or assets exists between the parties.”( ¶ 1 (App. 2004))).

-93, ¶ 17 (App. 2004) (In considering the parties’ financial resources, the court is obligated to consider other factors “such as the degree of the resource disparity between the parties, the ratio of the fees owed to the assets and/or income of each party, and other similar matters” in addition to ability to pay.

at ¶ 9 ( ¶ 1 (App. 2004) (alteration in Myrick).

¶ 20 (App. 2016) ( ¶ 6 (App. 2004)).

Although the court may award fees based on either financial disparity or reasonableness, n.1, ¶ 8 (App. 2004), it must consider both factors.

Although the court may award fees based on either financial disparity or reasonableness, n.1, ¶ 8 (App. 2004); ¶ 23 (App. 2012) (affirming fee award based on financial disparity), it must consider both factors.

¶ 12 (App. 2004) (award of fees appropriate when income disparity exists).

§ 25-324(A); n.1, ¶ 8 (App. 2004).

“[A]n applicant need not show both a financial disparity and an unreasonable opponent in order to qualify for consideration for an award.” n.1, ¶ 8 (App. 2004).

§ 25-324 lists “reasonableness” and “financial resources” as factors, a fee “applicant need not show both a financial disparity and an unreasonable opponent in order to qualify for consideration for an award.” n.1, ¶ 8 (App. 2004); ¶ 23 (App. 2012) (recognizing fee award may be based on financial disparity alone).

3 MEADOWS v. JEFFERS Decision of the Court ¶8 Here, the family court awarded fees based on the disparity of financial resources between the parties and because neither party acted unreasonably in the dissolution proceeding.2 n.1, ¶ 8 (App. 2004).

Either one of the first two findings would have been sufficient for a discretionary award of fees, n.13, ¶ 27 (App. 2011) ( n.1, ¶ 8 (App. 2004)), and the court was required to award Wife attorneys’ fees once it found Husband’s motion for relief was not grounded in fact or based on law.

¶ 36 (App. 2011); ¶ 6 (App. 2004).

While the primary purpose of the statute is to “provide a remedy for the party least able to pay,” ¶ 13 (App. 2007), the court can award fees based on either factor, n.1, ¶ 8 (App. 2004) (citation omitted) (“[A]n applicant need not show both a financial disparity and an unreasonable opponent in order to qualify for consideration for an award” under A.R.S.