Cited by

§ 25-318(A), the superior court “shall assign each spouse’s sole and separate property to such spouse” and shall divide the community property “equitably.” The court has broad discretion to apportion community property “to achieve an equitable division, and we will not disturb its allocation absent an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 13 (App. 2007).

entry of the DRO.” –51 ¶¶ 7–9, 12 (App. 2007).

A court “may abuse its discretion if it commits an error of law in the process of exercising its discretion.” ¶ 13 (App. 2007) (citation modified).

Because Husband waived any objection to the lack of written findings of fact and conclusions of law on these issues, see supra ¶¶ 8–9; see also Elliott, 165 Ariz. at 134, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the superior court’s ruling and will affirm if reasonable evidence supports it, ¶ 13 (App. 2007).

¶9 “In apportioning community property between the parties at dissolution, the superior court has broad discretion to achieve an equitable division.” ¶ 13 (App. 2007).

__, ¶ 27, ¶ 13 (App. 2007) (“In apportioning community property between parties at dissolution, the superior court has broad discretion to achieve an equitable division, and we will not disturb its allocation absent an abuse of discretion.”).

whether by mortgage, deed of trust, pledge or otherwise.” Thus, under the terms of the trust document, Husband may encumber the trust to obtain the monies to pay Wife her one-half share of the community’s interest, -52, ¶¶ 16-17 (App. 2007) (approving use of the reserved-jurisdiction method when no community assets were available to satisfy the non-employee spouse’s community interest and the pension rights had not yet matured), and on this record, Husband has not demonstrated that requiring him

¶8 When apportioning community property as part of a dissolution proceeding, “the superior court has broad discretion to achieve an equitable division, and we will not disturb its allocation absent an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 13 (App. 2007).

3 WARREN v. STEPHENS Decision of the Court DISCUSSION ¶7 We review for an abuse of discretion the division of community property, ¶ 13 (App. 2007), and the denial of a motion to alter or amend, ¶ 5 (App. 2020).