Bennett v. Bennett

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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:

CARY R. BENNETT, Petitioner/Appellee,

v.

NANCY L. BENNETT, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CV 25-0260 FC
FILED 10-23-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. FC2021-051814
The Honorable Colleen E. O’Donnell-Smith, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Reardon House Colton PLC, Scottsdale
By Taylor S. House
Co-Counsel for Respondent/Appellant

Scottsdale Family Law, PLLC, Scottsdale
By Aaron T. Blase
Co-Counsel for Respondent/Appellant

DeSoto Law Firm, Phoenix
By Rita E. DeSoto
Co-Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee
Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, Phoenix
By Eileen Dennis Gilbride
Co-Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Andrew J. Becke delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge David B. Gass and Judge Michael J. Brown joined.

B E C K E, Judge:

¶1 Nancy Bennett (“Wife”) appeals an order granting Cary
Bennett’s (“Husband”) post-decree petition to modify spousal maintenance
and denying Wife’s request for attorneys’ fees. For the following reasons,
we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 After almost 15 years of marriage, Husband and Wife
divorced in February 2022. Their two minor children live with Wife. In the
decree, Husband was ordered to pay spousal maintenance of $1,193 per
month for 11.5 years to Wife. In December 2023, Husband filed a post-
decree petition for termination of spousal maintenance, or in the
alternative, modification of spousal maintenance, claiming he was unable
to meet his financial obligations.

¶3 Although Husband’s annual income had increased from
$107,000 at the time of the decree to $156,000 at the time of the petition, he
alleged that his expenses had increased substantially and that the superior
court did not consider his increased expenses when it entered the decree.
Husband owed more than $44,572 for court ordered therapeutic services
including sessions with a therapeutic interventionist (“TI”), a behavioral
health assessment of the family, and individual counseling sessions for the
children.

¶4 Husband was responsible for the TI fees, while Husband and
Wife evenly split the assessment fees. Additionally, Husband was solely
responsible for the children’s counseling fees, subject to reallocation.

2
 BENNETT v. BENNETT
Decision of the Court

¶5 Husband testified that he was unable to pay for both the TI
and the children’s counseling. Wife testified that therapy had begun
tapering off in late 2023 because Husband was cancelling the appointments.
The record did not indicate when, if ever, therapy would end completely.

¶6 Wife testified that she receives social security disability
insurance benefits (“SSDI”) of $2,463 per month, and her SSDI had
increased since the decree by $2,400 per year. Wife and the children live in
a home her parents own, for which Wife paid no rent. Wife testified that
she was incurring a debt of $4,000 per month to her parents in lieu of rent,
but the court did not find it credible that Wife would pay her parents back,
stating: “[Wife] has no plan for doing so nor did she seem concerned about
it.”

¶7 Wife’s father submitted an affidavit regarding his financial
support for Wife, detailing annual two-week long beach vacations that he
provides for Wife and the children. Wife’s father provides “transportation,
lodging, food, cash and [his] personal credit cards for everyone in [his]
family.” Additionally, he pays for Wife and the children to go on additional
trips “during the children’s school breaks” at his expense. Wife’s father also
stated that, since Wife and Husband’s separation, he pays for Wife and
children to be able to have “special types of expenses and activities they
could not otherwise afford.”

¶8 The court denied Husband’s motion to terminate spousal
maintenance but granted his request for modification. The court analyzed
the factors in A.R.S. § 25-319(B) and found that Husband incurred
“significant debt in order to try to repair the relationship [with his] children
which he says has made it difficult to pay child support, spousal
maintenance, pay his debts, and continue to pay the unexpected fees
associated with the TI and counseling for himself and the children.” The
court found that Husband was entitled to a reduction of spousal
maintenance payments from $1,193 to $600 per month for the remainder of
the original term. The court based its ruling on “all of the relevant factors
and based upon all of the facts and circumstances presented.”

¶9 Additionally, the court considered Wife’s request for
attorneys’ fees and costs. The court found a “substantial disparity of
financial resources” between the parties but that neither party had acted
unreasonably and denied the request.

3
 BENNETT v. BENNETT
Decision of the Court

¶10 Wife moved to alter or amend the judgment reducing the
spousal maintenance award, which the court denied. Wife now appeals the
judgment reducing spousal maintenance and denying her attorneys’ fees
and the denial of her motion to alter or amend the judgment. We have
jurisdiction under Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and
A.R.S. § 12-120.21(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

I. The Superior Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Modifying
Spousal Maintenance.

¶11 Wife argues that the superior court abused its discretion when
it modified the spousal maintenance award based on a change in
circumstances that she alleges no longer applied at the time of the hearing.
She argues that Husband’s increased income combined with a cessation of
therapy should not have resulted in a reduction in spousal maintenance.

¶12 We review a superior court’s spousal maintenance
determinations for abuse of discretion. McClendon v. McClendon, 243 Ariz.
399, 401, ¶ 8 (App. 2017). “We defer to the court’s factual findings unless
they are clearly erroneous or unsupported by substantial evidence.” Id.

¶13 A spousal maintenance award “may be modified . . . only on
a showing of changed circumstances that are substantial and continuing.”
A.R.S. § 25-327(A). “The burden of proving changed circumstances is on the
party seeking modification.” Scott v. Scott, 121 Ariz. 492, 494 (1979). The
amount and duration of spousal maintenance is determined by
consideration of the factors set forth in A.R.S. § 25-319(B). See Cullum v.
Cullum, 215 Ariz. 352, 355, ¶ 15 (App. 2007).

¶14 The superior court made findings on each A.R.S. § 25-319(B)
factor to determine whether modification of the spousal maintenance
award was appropriate. It properly determined whether each factor
applied and whether any credible evidence was presented to support it. See
Cullum, 215 Ariz. at 355, ¶ 15 (“The [A.R.S. § 25-319(B)] determination by
the court is done on a case-by-case basis and some factors will not apply.”).

¶15 Contrary to Wife’s argument, the court considered whether
there was a substantial and continuing change of circumstances. The court’s
calculations included the possibility that therapy would end. It also
considered that Husband could rent a cheaper apartment than his $2,108
per month one-bedroom apartment. In its calculations, it reduced
Husband’s monthly expenses by $1,500 to account for the termination of

4
 BENNETT v. BENNETT
Decision of the Court

therapy and the possibility of Husband renting a cheaper apartment.
Additionally, the court acknowledged that therapy had reduced in
frequency when it said: “Wife testified that the children’s counseling
tapered off to once a month a while ago and that the children have not gone
to counseling in months. Husband did not dispute this testimony.”
Therefore, the court considered whether the change in circumstances no
longer applied at the time of the hearing.

¶16 Wife also argues that the superior court’s finding that
Husband could not meet his financial needs was unsupported by the
record. However, the court made specific findings on Husband’s ability to
meet his own and Wife’s needs when it analyzed the A.R.S. § 25-319(B)
factors. The court acknowledged Husband’s income increased but also
found that Husband incurred “unexpected fees” from the court ordered
therapy which made it difficult to pay his other obligations. The court
found that Husband had taken on significant debt because of his obligations
under the decree. And even though “Husband makes substantially more
income than Wife . . . the unexpected costs of the TI and counseling for
himself and the children ha[d] resulted in financial distress for Husband.”

¶17 The court also considered Wife’s living situation and ability
to pay her expenses under A.R.S. § 25-319(B). The court found Wife had
“limited finances,” but did not include rent when calculating monthly
expenses. Although Wife testified that she was being loaned $4,000 per
month from her parents, the court found “she [was] not accruing interest
on the debt and it [was] unclear how she plan[ned] to pay back her parents”
given that she is on permanent disability. The court noted Wife did not
seem concerned about the debt and did not articulate a plan to pay the debt
back. The court also found that Wife’s claimed $1,350 per month in
miscellaneous expenses — for clothing, school supplies, school activities
and fees, barber/beauty shop, family gifts, and pet expenses — were
unsupported. Instead, the court found Wife reasonably incurred $500 in
miscellaneous expenses, bringing her total expenses to $4,409 a month with
an income of $4,270 per month.

¶18 The superior court also considered that Wife had never spent
any of the children’s social security payments. Instead, Wife put those
payments into a savings account “for the children’s future expenses.” The
court pointed out that Wife could use this money — $666 per month to each
child — to pay for the children’s needs if neither party had the funds to do
so. This further supports the court’s conclusion that Wife could support
herself and was not in financial distress.

5
 BENNETT v. BENNETT
Decision of the Court

¶19 The court, guided by the factors of A.R.S. § 25-319(B),
considered Husband’s unexpected therapy related debt and the resulting
financial distress this had caused him. The court also considered Wife’s
ability to support herself, her current living situation, and her use of funds
available to her. The record supports the finding of changed and continuing
circumstances. Therefore, Wife fails to show the court abused its discretion
in the modification of the spousal maintenance award.

II. The Superior Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion by Denying an
Award of Attorneys’ Fees.

¶20 Wife argues that the superior court abused its discretion by
denying her request for attorneys’ fees. We review a superior court’s award
of attorneys’ fees for abuse of discretion. Magee v. Magee, 206 Ariz. 589, 590,
¶ 6 (App. 2004). We “will affirm the judgment if there is any reasonable
evidence to support it.” Helland v. Helland, 236 Ariz. 197, 202, ¶ 22 (App.
2014).

¶21 The superior court may award attorneys’ fees under A.R.S.
§ 25-324 “after considering the financial resources of both parties and the
reasonableness of the positions each party has taken throughout the
proceedings.” Even if the court finds a disparity in income, that “alone does
not mandate an award of fees. . . . [A] trial court has the discretion to deny
a fee request even after considering both statutory factors.” Myrick v.
Maloney, 235 Ariz. 491, 494, ¶ 9 (App. 2014).

¶22 Though the court found Husband’s income was greater than
Wife’s, it also found Husband had a large debt due to a “significant increase
in unexpected expenses” from the court ordered therapy and was unable to
meet his financial obligations. Income disparity is not dispositive. See
Myrick, 235 Ariz. at 494, ¶ 9. “If the trial court finds such a disparity, it is
then authorized to undertake its discretionary function of determining
whether an award is appropriate.” Magee, 206 Ariz. at 593, ¶ 18 (emphasis
added). The superior court concluded that neither party acted
unreasonably. The court was well within its discretion to deny Wife’s
request for an award of fees.

6
 BENNETT v. BENNETT
Decision of the Court

CONCLUSION

¶23 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm. Wife and Husband
request their respective attorneys’ fees incurred on appeal pursuant to
A.R.S. § 25-324. After considering the reasonableness and financial
resources of the parties and their positions on appeal, we deny both parties’
requests. However, as the successful party, Husband is entitled to an award
of costs upon compliance with ARCAP 21. A.R.S. § 12-341.

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

7