Cited by

¶ 29 (App. 2000); ¶ 23 (App. 2012).

¶ 20 (App. 2012) (“Because neither party requested written findings of fact or conclusions of law, we presume that the superior court found every fact necessary to support its ruling.”).

¶ 20 (App. 2012) (presuming superior court found every fact necessary to support its ruling where parties did not request written findings of fact or conclusions of law).

¶ 20 (App. 2012) (Absent a request for written findings of fact and conclusions of law, “we presume that the superior court found every fact necessary to support its ruling.”).

(holding that wife had right to bring action to divide property that parties knew about at time of decree but that was omitted from decree); ¶ 12 (App. 2012) (recognizing that party may seek allocation of property omitted from decree either by separate civil action or by motion to reopen dissolution).

“The superior court may maintain separate departments for different kinds of cases, but such administrative organization does not partition the court’s general subject matter jurisdiction.” ¶ 13 (App. 2012).

¶ 20 (App. 2012) (presuming superior court found every fact necessary to support its ruling because parties did not request written findings of fact or conclusions of law).

2 We view the evidence “in the light most favorable to supporting the decision below.” ¶ 20 (App. 2012) ().

¶ 20 (App. 2012) (citing Able Distrib.

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.

§ 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).

¶ 13 (App. 2012) (noting the 5 RAZDAN v. RAZDAN Decision of the Court (App. 2009) (citations omitted).

In re Marriage of Pownall, 197 Ariz. at 6 SENTER v. SENTER Decision of the Court 583, ¶ 29; ¶ 23 (App. 2012) (affirming fee award based on financial disparity).

“Arizona’s superior court is a ‘single unified trial court of general jurisdiction.’” ¶ 13 (App. 2012) (citation omitted); see also Ariz. Const. art. 6, §§ 13, 14.