Cited by

“We review de novo whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA,” ¶ 16 (App. 2011), but “will sustain the trial court’s ruling on any theory supported by the evidence, even though the trial court’s reasoning may differ from our own,” Lake Havasu Resort, Inc. v. Commercial Loan Ins.

¶ 16 (App. 2011); ¶ 8 (App. 2005) (this Court reviews de novo matters of statutory interpretation and mixed questions of fact and law).

¶ 6 (App. 2014) ( ¶ 26 (App. 2011)).

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.

n.13, ¶ 27 (App. 2011) (noting “‘an applicant need not show both a financial disparity and an unreasonable opponent in order to qualify for consideration for an award’”) (quoting Magee, 206 Ariz. at 591 n.1, ¶ 8).

2 VALENZUELA v. LUNA Decision of the Court request under § 25-324(A) for an abuse of discretion.”) ( ¶ 26, ).

- 53, ¶ 27, -71 (App. 2011).

n.13, ¶ 27, n.13 (App. 2011).

The superior court obviously believed Husband’s testimony that Wife unreasonably refused to cooperate with selling or leasing community real property and contacted “existing customers, employees, creditors, [and] equity partners of the business” to tell them Husband “was a drug addict” and was “hiding assets.” -53, ¶¶ 26-28, -71 (App. 2011) (affirming fee award to husband notwithstanding his superior financial resources based on wife’s unreasonable positions).

¶ 27 n.13, n.13 (App. 2011).

-53, ¶¶ 25-28, -71 (App. 2011) (affirming award of fees to father, notwithstanding his superior financial circumstances, given mother’s unreasonable positions).

P.3d 164 (App. 2011) was decided under the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

§ 25-324(A) (emphasis added); -53 ¶ 27, -71 (App. 2011) (recognizing A.R.S.

Compare, -53, -71 (App. 2011) (affirming award of fees against parent who withheld children from the other parent, breached agreements, and obtained a baseless order of protection).