Cited by

¶ 10 (App. 2020), ¶¶ 18–19 (2022).

Absent a clearly erroneous showing, this court accepts the superior court’s findings of fact, ¶ 4 (App. 2018), also deferring to that court for credibility assessments, ¶ 9 (App. 2020).

Pursuant to [Femiano v. Maust], the Court finds that both parties have contributed to the maintaining of the property and are entitled to an equitable lien for the full increase in equity in the home.

Bender, 123 Ariz. at 94; ¶ 10 (App. 2020), ¶¶ 18–19 (Ariz. Sept.

See Saba II, 516 P.3d at 895, ¶ 12; ¶ 19 (App. 2020), disapproved in part by Saba II, 516 P.3d at 897, ¶¶ 18-19.

¶11 to argue that the Drahos formula should not have been applied here.

Thus, he contended, because contributions to Leisure Lane were 100% community funds, the community was entitled to 100% of the appreciation, citing the court of appeals’

¶14 “A separate property residence remains separate property even if the community contributes funds and uses the residence as a family home.” ¶ 17 (App. 2020).

Before turning to the award, however, we emphasize that Father never asked the court to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law under Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure 82(a)(1), and we thus assume the court “found every controverted fact necessary to sustain the judgment.” ¶ 12 (App. 2020) (citation omitted).

Therefore, “we assume that the court found every controverted fact necessary to sustain the judgment, and we will uphold such an implicit finding if supported by the record.” ¶ 12 (App. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“We review de novo the legal question of whether property should be classified as community or separate.” ¶ 9 (App. 2020).

s passed and, as a result, this court lacks appellate jurisdiction over any 3 OBIEKEA v. OBIEKEA Decision of the Court accepts the superior court’s findings of fact, ¶ 4 (App. 2018), also deferring to that court for its credibility assessments, ¶ 9 (App. 2020).

¶22 When community funds are used to make capital contributions toward a separate asset, the community’s interests “in the separate asset [] may be vindicated through an equitable lien.” ¶ 17 (App. 2020).

“We review de novo the legal question of whether property should be classified as community or separate.” ¶ 9 (App. 2020).

resolve conflicting evidence,” ¶ 12 (App. 2018) (quotation omitted), and we will not reweigh conflicting evidence on appeal, ¶ 14 (App. 2020).

¶ 10 (App. 2020); see also Bell- Kilbourn, 216 Ariz. at 523, ¶ 7 ("[T]he disclaimer deed constitute[s] a binding contract that must be enforced in the absence of fraud or mistake.").