Hartman v. Parrott

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

TRINA V. HARTMAN, Petitioner/Appellant,

v.

ANDREW L. PARROTT, Respondent/Appellee.

No. 1 CA-CV 26-0042 FC
FILED 10-15-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. FC2021-050142
The Honorable Colleen E. O’Donnell-Smith, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Trina V. Hartman, Scottsdale
Petitioner/Appellant

Law Offices of Holly A. Bartee, Chandler
By Holly A. Bartee
Counsel for Respondent/Appellee

HARTMAN v. PARROTT
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Angela K. Paton and Judge Michael J. Brown joined.

B A I L E Y, Judge:

¶1 Trina V. Hartman (“Mother”) appeals the superior court’s
dismissal of her petition requesting an increase in spousal maintenance
from Andrew L. Parrott (“Father”). Mother argues the court erred in
dismissing her petition based on its finding that her monthly health
insurance obligation did not constitute a substantial and continuing change
in circumstances. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Mother and Father’s 2021 dissolution decree awarded Mother
spousal maintenance for an indefinite term. In July 2022, Father petitioned
to modify the award over Mother’s objection, and the court set an
evidentiary hearing in August 2023 (“2023 Hearing”).

¶3 In both an affidavit of financial information filed June 2023
and a pretrial statement filed August 2023, Mother stated she did not have
health insurance. After the 2023 Hearing, while the matter was under
advisement, Mother notified the superior court that she had obtained health
insurance coverage through a new employer.

¶4 In October 2023, the superior court issued an order (“2023
Order”) reducing Father’s monthly spousal maintenance obligation and
setting it to terminate in August 2025. The 2023 Order included no finding
on Mother’s health-insurance status and did not address Mother’s post-
hearing notice.

¶5 Later that month, Mother filed motions for reconsideration
and to “amend, alter and correct” the 2023 Order to reinstate the original
spousal maintenance award. Mother also moved to set aside the 2023
Order. In her motion to reconsider, Mother stated that she “does not have
a health insurance option through her employer” and “cannot afford the
cost of health insurance.” The court denied Mother’s motions.

2

HARTMAN v. PARROTT
Decision of the Court

¶6 In May 2024, Mother petitioned to modify spousal
maintenance, listing “job loss, no health insurance” as a basis for a change
in circumstances. The superior court dismissed Mother’s petition, finding
that it “fail[ed] to establish a substantial and continuing change in
circumstances that would warrant a modification.”

¶7 About two weeks later, Mother filed another petition to
modify spousal maintenance, alleging she “did not have health insurance
with [her] employer” during the 2023 Hearing but “left [her] job to work at
a medical clinic that offered health insurance” until she was let go “at the
end of November 2023.” The superior court dismissed Mother’s petition,
again finding that she failed to allege a substantial and continuing change
in circumstances.

¶8 The superior court designated Mother a vexatious litigant in
November 2024. In June 2025, with the court’s leave, Mother filed another
petition to modify spousal maintenance based on Father’s increased income
and her declining health (“2025 Petition”). Father’s spousal maintenance
obligation terminated soon after.

¶9 Mother then requested leave to amend her 2025 Petition,
arguing that Father had concealed assets and that the only job she was able
to obtain paid significantly less than the amount previously imputed to her.
In calculating her current gross monthly income, she noted that she had a
“Monthly Health Insurance Premium” for a policy she had to purchase
herself because her employer did not offer health insurance. The superior
court permitted Mother to amend the 2025 Petition “for the narrow
purposes of adding that [Mother] now must pay a monthly health
insurance premium,” which the court recognized as “a factor the Court
considers in determining spousal maintenance.” Mother thereafter filed
her First Amended Petition to Modify Spousal Maintenance (“Amended
Petition”), which added that “[t]he new change in circumstance is that
[Mother] is now required to pay a monthly health insurance premium.”

¶10 Father moved for reconsideration of the ruling permitting
Mother leave to amend, arguing that because she was uninsured at the 2023
Hearing, her Amended Petition alleged no changed circumstances. Mother
filed a response in which she argued that although she was uninsured at
the time of the 2023 Hearing, she had obtained health insurance two days
before the court issued the 2023 Order. She provided a W-2; an IRS Wage
and Tax Statement; a record of her unemployment insurance benefits; and
a letter from an employer stating that her employer-sponsored health

3

HARTMAN v. PARROTT
Decision of the Court

insurance coverage began two days before the 2023 Order issued and ended
about two months later.

¶11 The superior court granted Father’s motion to reconsider and
dismissed Mother’s 2025 Petition on several grounds, finding that Mother’s
health insurance obligation

[did] not constitute a substantial and continuing change in
circumstances as Mother acknowledges that she did not have
health insurance at the time the spousal maintenance order
was issued and therefore the issue of Mother’s need to cover
the cost of her own health insurance was at issue at the time
the spousal maintenance order was issued.

¶12 Mother timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under Arizona
Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) § 12-2101(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

I. Mother’s briefing is sufficient under Arizona Rules of Civil
Appellate Procedure (“ARCAP”) 13(a)(7).

¶13 Preliminarily, we address Father’s contention that Mother’s
opening brief does not comply with ARCAP 13(a)(7), and that she has
therefore waived any argument made in her brief. Under ARCAP 13(a)(7),
the appellant’s brief must include an argument containing the appellant’s
contentions about the issues presented, along with supporting reasons and
citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record relied on.
ARCAP 13(a)(7). Mother is held to the same standards as an attorney,
despite her pro per status. See Kelly v. NationsBanc Mortg. Corp., 199 Ariz.
284, 287, ¶ 16 (App. 2000).

¶14 Father argues that “Mother’s Opening Brief provides no
citations to support her assertions about the procedural history and trial
court’s rulings” and “fails to develop any cognizable legal arguments for
reversing those rulings.” But Mother’s references to the procedural history
and rulings are supported with record citations. Additionally, her
argument includes supporting reasons and citations to applicable case law.
Mother has not waived her arguments under ARCAP 13(a)(7).

¶15 Father also argues that Mother should be sanctioned under
ARCAP 25 and Mangan v. Mangan, 227 Ariz. 346 (App. 2011), because both
her briefing and her case management statement misrepresent the facts in
violation of ARCAP 13. To start, ARCAP 13 does not apply to case

4

HARTMAN v. PARROTT
Decision of the Court

management statements. Further, we disagree that Mother misrepresents
facts to a degree that warrants sanctions. See Whitmer v. Hilton Casitas
Homeowners Ass’n, 245 Ariz. 77, 82, ¶ 18 (App. 2018).

II. The superior court correctly held that Mother’s monthly health
insurance obligation did not constitute a substantial and continuing
change in circumstances.

¶16 Mother contends the superior court erred in dismissing her
2025 request to modify spousal maintenance on the ground that her
monthly health insurance obligation did not constitute a substantial and
continuing change in circumstances. Because Mother does not challenge
the other grounds for dismissal, they are waived. See Ertl v. Ertl, 252 Ariz.
308, 316, ¶ 29 (App. 2021).

¶17 We review the denial of a request to modify spousal
maintenance for abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Priessman, 228 Ariz.
336, 338, ¶ 7 (App. 2011). We review questions of law, such as
interpretation of statutory authority, de novo. Maximov v. Maximov, 220
Ariz. 299, 300, ¶ 2 (App. 2009). We defer to the superior court’s factual
findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Bobrow v. Bobrow, 241 Ariz. 592,
595, ¶ 11 (App. 2017).

¶18 Spousal maintenance “may be modified or terminated only
on a showing of changed circumstances that are substantial and
continuing.” A.R.S. § 25-327(A). “[A] change in the availability of health
insurance coverage may constitute a continuing and substantial change in
circumstance.” Id. A change is measured from “the latest court order in
effect.” McClendon v. McClendon, 243 Ariz. 399, 400, ¶ 1 (App. 2017).

¶19 Mother argues the superior court erred by disregarding her
health-insurance status as of the date the 2023 Order issued. Citing to
McClendon, Mother argues “[t]he superior court measured Mother’s
insurance from the wrong date. It looked to the [2023 Hearing], when
Mother was uninsured, instead of to the [2023 Order], when she was
insured.” Mother concedes she did not have health insurance during the
2023 Hearing. But she argues the court should have considered her health-
insurance status as of the day the 2023 Order issued, even though the order
itself did not reflect that she had health-insurance coverage.

¶20 Mother misinterprets McClendon. Her reading would require
the superior court to consider evidence that she submitted after the close of
the 2023 Hearing without requesting that the hearing be re-opened. Mother
cites no law, and we have found none, that would allow the superior court

5

HARTMAN v. PARROTT
Decision of the Court

to consider such evidence. Further, Mother’s interpretation runs contrary
to McClendon’s instruction that the superior court consider “the basis” for
the “latest court order in effect . . . when determining if modification of
spousal maintenance is warranted.” Id. at 400, 402, ¶¶ 1, 12. The 2023
Hearing was “the basis” for the 2023 Order—the “latest court order in
effect.” Because Mother concedes she did not have health insurance
coverage at the time of the 2023 Hearing, and she did not submit evidence
of coverage until after the hearing, the court did not abuse its discretion by
finding that Mother’s monthly health insurance obligation did not
constitute a substantial and continuing change in circumstances.

¶21 Father requests attorneys’ fees and costs on appeal pursuant
to A.R.S. § 12-324. In our discretion, we deny Father’s request for fees but
award Father his taxable costs as the prevailing party upon compliance
with ARCAP 21.

CONCLUSION

¶22 We affirm.

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

6