Cited by

(explaining the superior court “need not apply every factor,” only those that are applicable on a “case-by- case” basis); ¶ 15 (App. 2007) (“The determination by the court is done on a case-by-case basis and some factors will not apply.”).

We review a court’s rulings on spousal maintenance for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 9 (App. 2007), and view the evidence in the light most favorable to Wife, ¶ 14 (App. 1998).

See Cotter, 245 Ariz. at 85–86, ¶ 9 (explaining a spouse lacks sufficient property to provide for his reasonable needs if he must “consume” the property such that when he no longer has any earning capacity, “there would be nothing left” to draw upon) (internal quotation and citation omitted); ¶ 11 (App. 2007) (explaining a court should not require a spouse to “use up” the property allocated to her to be eligible for maintenance); Gutierrez, 193 Ariz. at 348, ¶ 20 (holding spouse “should not be c

(explaining the court “need not apply every factor,” only those that are applicable on a “case-by-case” basis); ¶ 15 (App. 2007) (“The determination by the court is done on a case-by-case basis and some factors will not apply.”).

¶ 9 (App. 2007); ¶ 14 (App. 2019).

¶ 14 n.5 (App. 2007) (noting that “a party cannot argue on appeal legal issues not raised” in the trial court).

¶ 14 n.5 (App. 2007) (noting that “a party cannot argue on appeal legal issues not raised” in the trial court); ¶ 13 (App. 2001) (explaining that the failure to raise an issue at the trial level constitutes waiver of that issue).

¶ 11 (App. 2013); ¶ 14 (App. 2010); ¶ 9 (App. 2007).

¶ 14 n.5 (App. 2007) (“As a general rule, a party cannot argue on appeal legal issues not raised below.”); see also Resol.

¶ 14 n.5 (App. 2007); see also Resol.

¶ 14 n.5 (App. 2007) (noting that appellate courts “will not consider arguments posited without authority”).