Cited by

sustain[ing] that ruling if the evidence reasonably supports it.” ¶ 2 (App. 2005).

McGlothlin, 255 Ariz. at 460, ¶ 35; ¶ 8 n.1 (App. 2005) (“In the absence of a transcript, an appellate court will presume that the record supports the trial court’s rulings.”).

¶ 8, n.1 (App. 2005) (“In the absence of a transcript, an appellate court will presume that the record supports the trial court’s rulings.”).

¶ 8, n.1 (App. 2005) (“In the absence of a transcript, an 3 BAILEY, et al. v. BAILEY, et al. Decision of the Court appellate court will presume that the record supports the trial court’s rulings.”).

¶ 8 n.1 (App. 2005) (citing Baker, 183 Ariz. at 73 ¶ 11 (App. 1998)).

¶ 9 (App. 2016); ¶ 2 (App. 2005); ¶ 18 (App. 2011) (“The presence of contrary facts does not render a [superior] court’s factual determinations clearly 1 Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited refer to the current version unless otherwis

Baker, 183 Ariz. at 73; ¶ 8 n.1 (App. 2005) (“In the absence of a transcript, an appellate court will presume that the record supports the trial court’s rulings.”).

¶ 8 n.1 (App. 2005) ( ).

§ 407(a); ¶ 10 (App. 2005); ¶ 5 (2000).

¶ 2 (App. 2005) (noting that while “the trial court’s equitable apportionment of community property” will not be disturbed “absent an abuse of discretion,” an abuse of discretion may be found “when a trial court commits an error of law in the process of exercising its discretion” (citations omitted)).

We review the apportionment of community property between spouses in the “light most favorable to upholding the trial court’s ruling and will sustain that ruling if the evidence reasonably supports it.” ¶ 2 (App. 2005).

n.1 (App. 2005); ARCAP 11(b) (requiring that parties order transcripts they desire to be included in the record on appeal).

“[W]e consider the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the superior court’s ruling and will sustain the ruling if it is reasonably supported by the evidence.” Boncoskey, 216 Ariz. at 451, ¶ 13 ( ¶ 2 (App. 2005)).

We review the apportionment of community property between the spouses in the “light most favorable to upholding the trial court’s ruling and will sustain that ruling if the evidence reasonably supports it.” ¶ 2 (App. 2005).