Cited by

¶ 2 (App. 2005); ¶ 9 (App. 2016); ¶ 18 (App. 2011) (“The presence of contrary facts does not render a trial court’s factual determinations clearly erroneous.”).

¶ 9 (App. 5 DOLE v. DOLE Decision of the Court 2016) (child support); ¶ 9 (App. 2007) (spousal maintenance).

.” –13, ¶ 9 (App. 2016).

For example, ¶ 5 (App. 2016), the father was not voluntarily unemployed; he could not work because of a medical condition.

For example, -13, ¶¶ 5, 12 (App. 2016), the father was unable to work because of a medical condition and not voluntarily unemployed.

“We review child support awards for abuse of discretion.” ¶ 9 (App. 2016).

However, "'[c]hild support and [spousal] maintenance are considered under different laws,' and awards for both 'involve distinct considerations.'" ¶ 18 n.2 (App. 2018) (alteration in original) ( ¶ 18 n.1 (App. 2016) and Elliott, 165 Ariz. at 137).

¶7 “Spousal maintenance is not intended to serve ‘as a method of holding open the courtroom door for possible changes of circumstances.’” ¶ 19 (App. 2016) ().

§ 25-319(B); ¶ 17 (App. 2016).

Sherman v. Sherman , , 112, ¶ 9, , 326-27 (App. 2016) ; Engel v. Landman , , 510, ¶ 21, , 848 (App. 2009).