Armstrong v. Armstrong

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

CHANDRA ARMSTRONG, Petitioner/Appellant,

v.

JIMMY ARMSTRONG, JR., Respondent/Appellee.

No. 1 CA-CV 25-0425 FC
FILED 01-21-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. FC2025-050279
The Honorable Hope E. Fruchtman, Judge, Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Chandra Armstrong, Glendale
Petitioner/Appellant

Jimmy Armstrong, Jr., Phoenix
Respondent/Appellee

ARMSTRONG v. ARMSTRONG
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Brian Y. Furuya delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Andrew M. Jacobs and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined.

F U R U Y A, Judge:

¶1 Chandra Armstrong (“Mother”) appeals the superior court’s
denial of an upward deviation in her child support award. For the following
reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Mother and Jimmy Armstrong (“Father”) separated in
September 2024 when Father moved out of the family home, which the
couple owned together. Mother remained in the home with their two
daughters and Father’s adult son. Mother then paid the household bills,
including the mortgage, the electric bill, the car payment, and their
daughters’ extracurricular activity fees, with some assistance from Father
on several occasions.

¶3 Mother filed a petition to establish child support in January
2025. The Child Support Worksheet listed Father’s monthly child support
obligation as $1,495 per month. Mother requested an upward deviation to
bring the monthly payment up to $4,353. To support her request, Mother
cited Father’s “concealment and fraudulent disposition of community
assets” that she contended should be considered part of Father’s income.
Mother introduced evidence to support her allegation that Father had
“tricked [her] into signing second mortgage home equity loan documents
featuring a ten-year balloon payment” and “received $97,000 in home
equity loan proceeds.” She also claimed that Father “filed an $83,167
homeowner’s insurance claim,” that Father “did not use . . . to benefit the
household.” Additionally, Mother cited the large income difference
between her and Father to support her request. The superior court denied
Mother’s request for upward deviation, instead ordering Father to pay the
amount calculated according to the Child Support Worksheet.

¶4 Mother timely appealed and we have jurisdiction pursuant to
Arizona Revised Statutes Section 12-2101(A)(1) and (2).

2

ARMSTRONG v. ARMSTRONG
Decision of the Court

DISCUSSION

¶5 Mother contends the superior court erred by denying her
request for an upward deviation in child support because it failed to
consider the evidence she provided of Father’s concealed “income.” Father
filed no answering brief, which we may consider a confession of reversible
error as to any debatable issue raised by Mother on appeal. Savord v. Morton, 235 Ariz. 256, 259 ¶ 9 (App. 2014). But as explained herein, Mother does not
present any debatable issues in her appeal. Further, because this appeal
addresses an award of child support, it necessarily implicates the best
interests of children, a circumstance in which we regularly decline to apply
the confession of error doctrine. See, e.g., In re Marriage of Diezsi, 201 Ariz.
524, 525 ¶ 2 (App. 2002). Therefore, we decline to treat Father’s failure to
file an answering brief as a confession of error.

¶6 The Arizona Child Support Guidelines (“Guidelines”)
provide that a parent seeking more than the presumptive child-support
amount derived from the Guidelines and the Schedule of Basic Support
Obligation (“Schedule”) “bears the burden of proving the children’s needs
require a higher sum.” Guidelines § III(A)(1)(c). “Child support awards are
within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal
absent an abuse of that discretion.” Simpson v. Simpson, 224 Ariz. 224, 225 ¶
4 (App. 2010). “An abuse of discretion exists when the court commits an
error of law in reaching a discretionary conclusion[,]” Coconino County v.
Antco, Inc., 214 Ariz. 82, 85 ¶ 6 (App. 2006), or “when the record, viewed in
the light most favorable to upholding the trial court’s decision, is ‘devoid
of competent evidence to support the decision[,]’” Milinovich v. Womack, 236
Ariz. 612, 615 ¶ 7 (App. 2015) (quoting Little v. Little, 193 Ariz. 518, 520 ¶ 5
(1999)).

¶7 Utilizing the Child Support Worksheet, the court found that
Father earns $8,666.67 monthly and his child support payment would be
$1,495 per month. Mother requested an upward deviation resulting in a
$4,353 monthly child support payment to pay the total cost of raising the
children. Mother argues that in determining the child support award, the
court failed to consider the evidence she presented of Father’s “concealment
and fraudulent disposition of community assets” consisting of a
fraudulently obtained “‘cash out’ mortgage with a 10 year balloon
payment” and a water damage insurance claim Father filed unbeknownst
to Mother. However, upon dissolution of marriage, home equity and
insurance claim payouts are community assets subject to equitable division.
See Nace v. Nace, 104 Ariz. 20, 22 (1968) (stating that “property acquired by
either husband or wife during the marriage, except that which is acquired

3

ARMSTRONG v. ARMSTRONG
Decision of the Court

by gift, devise or descent . . . is the community property of the husband and
wife”); see also Hardin v. Hardin, 163 Ariz. 501, 503 (App. 1990) (“Upon
dissolution, community property is divided such that each party receives
an immediate, present, and vested separate property interest.”) (citation
omitted). Because the division of community assets is a distinct issue from
calculation of income, neither the mortgage payout nor the insurance claim
are relevant to income for purposes of determining a child support award.
Moreover, even if such assets were relevant to calculating child support,
evidence was properly before the court regarding each asset and we
presume that after it admits evidence, a trial court considers that evidence
before issuing a decision. Fuentes v. Fuentes, 209 Ariz. 51, 55 ¶ 18 (App.
2004). Thus, we presume the court considered this evidence,
notwithstanding Mother’s argument to the contrary.

¶8 And even if we were not required to presume the court
considered that evidence, the court expressly confirmed it did so. It stated
that it entered its order denying Mother’s upward deviation “[b]ased on the
information and testimony presented.” Thus, our review must accept as
given that the court considered all evidence presented and admitted. Id.
Mother provides nothing to rebut this presumption and demonstrates no
error from any purported failure to consider evidence.

¶9 Moreover, the court specifically found Mother had failed to
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a legal basis for an
upward deviation in the child support amount. It instead awarded the child
support amount based on the Child Support Worksheet, finding that if the
upward deviation were to be granted, Father’s $8,666.67 monthly income
would be reduced by a $4,353 payment leaving him with $4,313, which the
court determined would leave him with insufficient funds for his needs.

¶10 In view of the court’s findings and the applicable
presumption that it considered all evidence it had admitted, Mother’s
arguments on appeal amount to a request that we reweigh the evidence,
which we will not do. Hurd v. Hurd, 223 Ariz. 48, 52 ¶ 16 (App. 2009). The
record supports the court’s finding that a deviation was not warranted. See
Nash v. Nash, 232 Ariz. 473, 476 ¶ 5 (App. 2013) (“We will accept the court’s
findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous . . . .”); Davis v. Zlatos, 211
Ariz. 519, 523–24 (App. 2005) (“Factual findings are not clearly erroneous if
substantial evidence supports them, and substantial evidence is evidence
which would permit a reasonable person to reach the trial court’s result.”)
(citation modified).

4

ARMSTRONG v. ARMSTRONG
Decision of the Court

¶11 Mother’s disagreement with the court’s weighing of the
evidence does not entitle her to relief. Therefore, the court did not abuse its
discretion in declining to deviate from the Guidelines. See Simpson, 224 Ariz.
at 225 ¶ 4.

CONCLUSION

¶12 We affirm.

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

5