Trembath v. Trembath

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE

In re the Matter of:

FELICIA TREMBATH, Petitioner/Appellant,

v.

AARON TREMBATH, Respondent/Appellee.

No. 1 CA-CV 25-0140 FC
FILED 07-14-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. FC2023-004958
The Honorable Glenn A. Allen, Judge

AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART

COUNSEL

Modern Law, PLLC, Mesa
By Billie Tarascio
Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant

Aaron Trembath, Mesa
Respondent/Appellee
 TREMBATH v. TREMBATH
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Vice Chief Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court,
in which Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge Veronika Fabian
joined.

W E I N Z W E I G, Vice Chief Judge:

¶1 Felicia Trembath (“Mother”) appeals the superior court’s
dissolution decree, challenging its award of parenting time and legal
decision-making, its division of the marital estate and its denial of her
request for attorney fees. We affirm in part and vacate and remand in part.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Mother and Aaron Trembath (“Father”) married in 2004 and
share one minor child, Logan (a pseudonym), born September 2009.1 Father
left the family for long stretches beginning in 2013 and then abandoned
them in 2016 to start a food truck business in Utah. Father visited the family
only once over the next seven years and only called Mother about insurance
issues.

¶3 In 2023, Father reached out after learning that Logan had
attempted suicide and been hospitalized. Logan answered, and they
reconnected.

¶4 Although Mother supported their renewed relationship, she
questioned Father’s commitment to Logan’s medical care. Logan suffered
from a litany of medical conditions and needed ongoing daily care. And
when Mother needed Father’s input on medical issues, he did not timely
respond.

¶5 Logan visited his paternal family in Utah. But he returned to
Arizona destabilized and off his medication, and he tested positive for
marijuana.

¶6 Mother petitioned to dissolve the marriage, and the superior
court held a trial in October 2024. The parties contested legal decision-

1 Mother and Father share an adult child who is not involved in this
appeal.

2
 TREMBATH v. TREMBATH
Decision of the Court

making authority, parenting time, child support, asset and debt division
and attorney fees. Mother wanted sole legal decision-making, supervised
visitation for Father in Arizona, half the community interest in Father’s food
truck business, equal division of her credit card debt and student loans, and
attorney fees from Father for litigating unreasonably. Father wanted sole
legal decision-making and supervised parenting time for Mother.

¶7 The superior court’s dissolution decree awarded the parties
joint legal decision-making with Mother holding final authority. It gave
Father one weekend of parenting time each month, plus half of all holidays
and vacations, which he could exercise in Utah or Arizona. The court did
not divide Father’s interest in the food truck business. And despite hearing
testimony from both parties, it found “no community debts were identified
for allocation,” reasoning that Mother “listed various debts in her [affidavit
of financial information] but failed to provide any evidence whatsoever to
corroborate the existence of these debts or when they were incurred.” Last,
the court denied Mother’s attorney fee request, finding she had greater
resources and both parties acted unreasonably.

¶8 Mother timely appealed. We have jurisdiction. A.R.S. §§ 12-
120.21(A)(1), -2101(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶9 Mother argues the superior court erroneously (1) found she
presented no corroborating evidence of the community debts, (2) failed to
divide Father’s food truck business, (3) decided parenting time and legal
decision-making against the weight of the evidence, and (4) denied her
request for attorney fees.

¶10 Father did not file an answering brief, which we may construe
as a confession of error when the opening brief presents debatable issues.
See Savord v. Morton, 235 Ariz. 256, 259, ¶ 9 (App. 2014). A debatable issue
exists when there is “at least grave doubt” about the superior court’s order.
Williams v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 261 Ariz. 303, 315 ¶ 56 (App. 2025). We
will not apply a confession of error, however, when a child’s best interests
are at stake. Nold v. Nold, 232 Ariz. 270, 273, ¶ 10 (App. 2013).

I. Division of Debt.

¶11 Mother argues the superior court erroneously found she
failed to present evidence corroborating the credit card debt and student
loans listed in her affidavit of financial information. We review de novo

3
 TREMBATH v. TREMBATH
Decision of the Court

whether property is separate or community. Kim v. Pak, 258 Ariz. 594, 596,
¶ 7 (App. 2024).

¶12 The superior court’s division of marital property in a
dissolution proceeding “shall assign each spouse’s sole and separate
property to such spouse” and “shall also divide the community, joint
tenancy and other property held in common equitably, though not
necessarily in kind[.]” A.R.S. § 25-318(A). The law presumes that debts
either spouse incurs during marriage are community obligations. See
Flower v. Flower, 223 Ariz. 531, 537, ¶ 24 (App. 2010). “[T]he party who
contends otherwise has the burden of overcoming the presumption by clear
and convincing proof.” Lorenz-Auxier Fin. Grp., Inc. v. Bidewell, 160 Ariz.
218, 220 (App. 1989).

¶13 Here, the superior court found Mother presented no
corroborating evidence to prove her credit card debt and student loans
were incurred during the marriage. That was error. Testimony is evidence
when presented under oath. See e.g., Maricopa Cnty. Juv. Action No.
JV131701, 183 Ariz. 481, 482 n.1 (App. 1995) (“In a contested hearing,
testimony is evidence from a witness who is under oath and subject to
cross-examination.”). Mother testified that she used the credit cards for
medical and living expenses during the marriage. She received the student
loans between 2006 and 2016—during the marriage—to pay for the family’s
living expenses and Father’s education. Mother clarified the loans were in
her name because she was a graduate student with a stipend and received
more favorable loan terms than Father, who was an undergraduate. What
is more, Mother’s affidavit, which listed the credit card debt and student
loans, was admitted into evidence.

¶14 For his part, Father did not challenge when Mother incurred
the debt, and he conceded he was “happy to take debts that were
generated.” Father only insisted he was not responsible for Mother’s
student loans because he would not benefit from her degree.

¶15 The superior court erroneously found that Mother failed to
present corroborating evidence of the debts. Because the court never
reached whether Father proved the debt was separate or how to divide it
equitably, we vacate the court order declining to divide the debt and
remand for further findings.

II. Division of Father’s Food Truck Business.

¶16 Mother next argues the superior court failed to divide
Father’s interest in the food truck business. When community assets are

4
 TREMBATH v. TREMBATH
Decision of the Court

omitted from a dissolution decree, the parties hold them as tenants in
common. A.R.S. § 25-318(D) (“The community, joint tenancy and other
property held in common for which no provision is made in the decree shall
be from the date of the decree held by the parties as tenants in common,
each possessed of an undivided one-half interest.”).

¶17 Because the food truck business was created during the
marriage and the dissolution decree does not divide the business interest,
Mother and Father share it as tenants in common. Each party now owns an
undivided one-half interest in the business until the court divides it by
agreement or court order. To divide the interest by court order, Mother
may move for relief from the decree or file a civil action. See Ariz. R. Fam.
Law P. 85; Dressler v. Morrison, 212 Ariz. 279, 281–82, ¶¶ 12–14 (2006).

III. Parenting Time and Legal Decision-Making Authority.

¶18 Mother argues the evidence did not support the superior
court’s parenting time and legal decision-making orders. We review the
court’s legal decision-making and parenting time orders for an abuse of
discretion. Nold, 232 Ariz. at 273, ¶ 11. An abuse of discretion occurs when
no reasonable evidence supports the court’s decision. Little v. Little, 193
Ariz. 518, 520, ¶ 5 (1999). We do not reweigh the evidence presented to the
superior court but instead defer to its “determinations of witness credibility
and the weight given to conflicting evidence.” Lehn v. Al-Thanayyan, 246
Ariz. 277, 284, ¶ 20 (App. 2019).

¶19 Arizona courts must decide legal decision-making and
parenting time “in accordance with the best interests of the child,” which
turn on “all factors that are relevant to the child’s physical and emotional
well-being,” including the nonexclusive factors listed in A.R.S. § 25-403(A).
A child’s best interests presumptively include “[t]o have substantial,
frequent, meaningful and continuing parenting time with both parents,”
and absent evidence to the contrary, “[t]o have both parents participate in
decision-making about the child.” A.R.S. § 25-103(B).

¶20 We discern no abuse of discretion. The record supports the
superior court’s detailed § 25-403 best interests findings. The court
reasonably concluded that joint legal decision-making, with limited
parenting time for Father, served Logan’s best interests. Father has
maintained a consistent presence in Logan’s life since resurfacing in 2023
and Logan wants to rebuild their relationship.

¶21 Mother argues the evidence does not support the superior
court’s ruling because Father was unfamiliar with Logan’s medical issues

5
 TREMBATH v. TREMBATH
Decision of the Court

and struggled to respond promptly to medical inquiries. The decree
addressed those concerns. Father must provide Logan’s medication during
his parenting time. Violating that order will suspend all of Father’s
parenting time. The court also stated if Father failed to respond to non-
emergency matters within 72 hours, Mother could proceed without his
input.

IV. Attorney Fees.

¶22 Mother last challenges the superior court’s denial of her
request for attorney fees. We review an award of attorney fees for an abuse
of discretion. Myrick v. Maloney, 235 Ariz. 491, 494, ¶ 6 (App. 2014).

¶23 Section 25-324 authorizes the superior court to award
attorney fees after it weighs the parties’ financial resources and how
reasonable their positions were throughout the proceedings.

¶24 Mother argues the superior court abused its discretion
because Father was more unreasonable and she does not have considerably
more resources. We discern no abuse of discretion because the court
accounted for Father’s unreasonable positions and Mother no longer bears
her entire student loan debt. See In re Marriage of Williams, 219 Ariz. 546,
550, ¶ 15 (App. 2008) (“It is for the trial court to determine how much
weight to give each of these factors.”).

¶25 Mother requests her attorney fees on appeal under A.R.S.
§ 25-324, which we decline in our discretion.

CONCLUSION

¶26 We vacate the superior court’s division of debt and remand
for additional findings. We affirm the court’s legal decision-making and
parenting time orders and denial of attorney fees. We take no action
regarding the food truck business.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

6