state/dennis v. Lightle

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

STATE OF ARIZONA ex rel., DES (SIRENA SIMONE DENNIS),
Petitioners/Appellees,

v.

BRIAN GREGORY LIGHTLE, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CV 25-0686 FC
FILED 07-02-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. FC2011-053076
The Honorable John R. Doody, Judge Pro Tempore

VACATED AND REMANDED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Alejandra Valdez
Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee State of Arizona

Sirena Simone Dennis, Parker, CO
Petitioner/Appellee

S. Alan Cook PC, Phoenix
By S. Alan Cook
Counsel for Respondent/Appellant

STATE/DENNIS v. LIGHTLE
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Andrew J. Becke joined.

C A T T A N I, Judge:

¶1 Brian Lightle (“Father”) appeals from an order modifying his
child support obligation. Because of anomalies in the superior court’s child
support worksheet, we vacate the award and remand for recalculation.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Father and Sirena Dennis (“Mother”) have one child in
common, born in 2011. The two share joint legal decision-making, but
Father exercises no parenting time.

¶3 Mother petitioned to modify child support in July 2024. At
that time, Father’s support obligation was $1,353.53 per month. Mother
asserted that Father’s employment had changed and his income had
increased substantially, warranting an increase in child support. In
response, Father requested a reduction in his support obligation, denying a
change in his own income but alleging that Mother understated her income
and overstated the child’s expenses.

¶4 Father’s income, Mother’s income, and childcare expenses
were disputed issues at the resulting evidentiary hearing, at which both
Mother and Father testified. After taking the matter under advisement, the
superior court calculated Father’s new child support obligation as $1,963
per month. The court calculated Father’s income based on the adjusted
gross income shown on his 2024 tax return (intended to capture Father’s
self-employment income and VA disability benefits) plus his future
expected earnings from a 20% ownership interest in a newly formed
business.1 The court used the hourly pay rate reflected on Mother’s pay

1 The court used the same income figure, less the future expected
earnings, to calculate Father’s obligation from the effective date of the
modification (the month following service of Mother’s petition) to the
month following the ruling, when the current support obligation would
begin. See A.R.S. § 25-327(A); see also A.R.S. § 25-503(E).

2

STATE/DENNIS v. LIGHTLE
Decision of the Court

stub to calculate her income. Over Father’s objection, the court included
the ongoing $350 per month that Mother paid for childcare for their teenage
child.

¶5 Father and Mother filed motions to alter or amend the
judgment, which the superior court denied. Father timely appealed, and
we have jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(2).

DISCUSSION

I. Child Support Modification.

¶6 In Arizona, all child support obligations are determined
under the Arizona Child Support Guidelines, which calculate an overall
amount of support and each parent’s proportionate share. A.R.S. § 25-320
app. (“Guidelines”) § I(A). An existing child support obligation may be
modified upon a showing of a substantial and continuing change in
circumstances, including circumstances in which the Guidelines amount
varies at least 15% from the existing support order. A.R.S. § 25-327(A);
Guidelines § XIV(A), (C)(1)(a). We review an order modifying child
support for an abuse of discretion. Little v. Little, 193 Ariz. 518, 520, ¶ 5
(1999). We accept the superior court’s factual findings unless clearly
erroneous but review its legal conclusions de novo. Birnstihl v. Birnstihl, 243
Ariz. 588, 590–91, ¶ 8 (App. 2018). We defer to the superior court’s
credibility assessments. Nia v. Nia, 242 Ariz. 419, 423–24, ¶ 14 (App. 2017).

¶7 Father challenges the superior court’s findings as to several
criteria relevant to calculation of support under the Guidelines: each party’s
income, adjustments to child support income based on children from other
relationships, and adjustments to the basic support obligation for childcare
expenses. As described below, one anomalous adjustment to child support
income requires vacatur of the award and remand for recalculation. See
infra ¶¶ 8–10. We also briefly address Father’s other arguments concerning
issues that may recur on remand. See infra ¶¶ 11–18.

A. Adjustments to Child Support Income.

¶8 Under the Guidelines, a parent’s income for purposes of
determining child support is reduced to account for support paid for
children of other relationships. See Guidelines § II(B)(2)(c)–(d). The amount
deducted is either the amount the parent actually pays in court-ordered
support for the other child or, for the primary residential parent of the other
child, an amount based on a simplified application of the Guidelines. Id.

3

STATE/DENNIS v. LIGHTLE
Decision of the Court

¶9 The superior court here included two such adjustments. The
parties did not dispute that Father had another son who lives with him, so
the court properly included an other-child deduction for Father based on a
simplified application of the Guidelines.2 See Guidelines § II(B)(2)(d).

¶10 But the court also included an other-child deduction of $4,900
for Mother, even though Mother confirmed that she had no children from
other relationships. The record reveals no apparent explanation for this
deduction, and it appears contrary to the superior court’s intended
calculation, which (accurately) listed “0” other children for Mother. This
deduction, which is not supported by the record, substantially skews the
parties’ combined income (and thus their combined support obligation) as
well as their proportionate, income-based shares of that obligation. See
Guidelines § I(A) (Steps 1, 3, 5, 6). Accordingly, we vacate the modified
child support award and remand for recalculation.

B. Child Support Income.

¶11 Father asserts that the superior court erred in calculating both
his and Mother’s income. Income under the Guidelines includes gross
income from any source. Guidelines § II(A)(1)(b). Among other sources,
this may include a parent’s wages, military disability benefits, and earnings
from self-employment or business ownership. See Guidelines § II(A)(1)(b),
(e). Income for child support purposes is not necessarily equivalent to
income for tax purposes. See Guidelines § II(A)(1)(a).

1. Father’s Income.

¶12 Father asserts that the superior court substantially overstated
his income by including non-recurring income and an unsupported
estimate of his future business earnings. The superior court’s ruling reflects
an intent to base Father’s income on three sources: (1) his self-employment
income as an independent contractor for a corporation, (2) his VA disability
compensation, and (3) for purposes of current support, his expected future
income as a 20% owner of a newly formed LLC. The court calculated this
amount based on the adjusted gross income shown on Father’s 2024 tax
return (ostensibly to capture his self-employment income and VA disability

2 Father appears to suggest that the superior court erred in some
unspecified manner with regard to the other-child deduction in his favor.
Father does not meaningfully develop this argument, so it is waived. See
ARCAP 13(a)(7)(A); Ritchie v. Krasner, 221 Ariz. 288, 305, ¶ 62 (App. 2009).

4

STATE/DENNIS v. LIGHTLE
Decision of the Court

benefits) plus $500 per month in expected earnings as a 20% owner of the
LLC.

¶13 Father initially argues that the income calculated by the court
was artificially inflated because his 2024 tax return included more than
$44,000 from a one-time liquidation of a 401(k). Complicating matters,
although the parties and the superior court seem to assume the 2024 return
was in evidence, Father’s 2024 tax return was never admitted in evidence,
leaving this court without record evidence to meaningfully review this
issue. The copy of the 2024 return attached to Father’s motion to alter or
amend, although not in evidence, does reflect more than $44,000 in income
from “[p]ensions and annuities,” and Father testified at trial that those
funds resulted from total liquidation of his 401(k).

¶14 Assuming the superior court credited Father’s testimony in
this regard, the Guidelines grant the court discretion to consider even non-
continuing income as income for child support purposes. See Guidelines §
II(A)(1)(d). Nevertheless, the court’s written ruling suggests that it did not
intend to include funds from Father’s 401(k) in its income calculation. The
court has discretion to adjust the calculation accordingly on remand.

¶15 Although the court’s ruling correctly stated that Father’s
income should include his monthly VA disability benefits, see Guidelines §
II(A)(1)(b), those benefits are not taxable. Accordingly, those benefits were
not included in the income number the court drew from Father’s tax return.
The court likewise has discretion on remand to include these amounts in
the child support income calculation.

¶16 Father next asserts that the superior court lacked an adequate
evidentiary basis to include $500 per month in anticipated future earnings
from his 20% ownership interest in the LLC. Although the newly formed
LLC apparently reported a loss for its first year, Father testified that he
expected to earn future income from the LLC. Notwithstanding
uncertainty as to the amount, Father suggested the LLC would net $30,000
over the next year “off of what we have”: existing multi-year contracts with
front-loaded expenses, which resulted in a loss for the first year but would
generate income in future years. Father confirmed that, based on existing
information, his 20% share would be approximately $6,000 per year.

¶17 To be sure, Father’s estimate of future business income
necessarily involved some degree of uncertainty. But his testimony
provided an adequate basis for the superior court’s inclusion of $500 per
month going forward. See Guidelines § II(A)(1)(e). Given the passage of

5

STATE/DENNIS v. LIGHTLE
Decision of the Court

time and because we vacate the child support award for other reasons, the
superior court on remand may, in its discretion, consider additional
evidence to determine Father’s actual business income from the LLC.

2. Mother’s Income.

¶18 Relying on the total compensation reflected on Mother’s year-
end paystub, Father argues that the superior court understated Mother’s
income. That paystub, however, included categories of compensation
beyond full-time employment (e.g., overtime, bonus, reimbursement). The
Guidelines direct that child support income “generally does not include
more income than earned through full-time employment,” although the
court has discretion to include additional sums under certain
circumstances. Guidelines § II(A)(3). Consistent with that directive, the
superior court here calculated Mother’s full-time income based on her
hourly wage. The court’s child support worksheet, however, includes an
apparent typo—listing Mother’s hourly wage as $28.24 as opposed to the
$28.84 reflected on her paystub. The court on remand should recalculate
with the correct hourly wage to ensure Mother’s actual income is reflected.

C. Adjustments to the Basic Child Support Obligation:
Childcare Expenses.

¶19 Finally, Father argues the superior court erred by including
$350 in childcare costs as an adjustment to the basic combined child support
obligation, asserting that Mother failed to provide proof of payment and
that childcare is unnecessary in any case given the child’s age. But Mother
testified to that expense and explained that such care was necessary given
her working hours and the child’s needs. See Guidelines § III(B)(4).
Although Father expressed a different view, the superior court could
properly credit Mother’s testimony, and we defer to that assessment. See
Nia, 242 Ariz. at 423–24, ¶ 14.

II. Attorney’s Fees on Appeal.

¶20 Father requests an award of his attorney’s fees and costs on
appeal under A.R.S. § 25-324. Having considered the relevant factors and
in the exercise of our discretion, we deny his request.

¶21 Arguing that Father’s appeal lacked substantial justification,
Mother requests an award of attorney’s fees and costs under A.R.S. § 12-349
and ARCAP 25. Given our disposition of the matter (and noting that
Mother was self-represented on appeal and thus did not incur recoverable
fees), we deny her request.

6

STATE/DENNIS v. LIGHTLE
Decision of the Court

CONCLUSION

¶22 We vacate the modified child support awards (both the
current support order and the interim order beginning on the effective date
of modification) and remand for recalculation.

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

7