Cited by

See Logan B. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, -38 ¶¶ 13-15 (App. 2018) (requiring specific factual findings supporting termination of parental rights); -33 (App. 1990) (requiring specific factual findings supporting child support and spousal maintenance awards in family court).

Satisfactory findings “encompass all of the ‘ultimate’ facts—that is, those necessary to resolve the disputed issues[.]” (citation omitted).

(under analogous Rule 52, a court need only make findings on the ultimate facts necessary to resolve the disputed issues).

The juvenile court may rely on proposed orders to make its factual findings provided “those findings are consistent with the ones that it reaches independently after properly considering the facts.”

¶23 “A consent judgment [or decree] is one that is entered by stipulation of the parties.”

¶21 Because substantial evidence in the record supports the court’s spousal maintenance eligibility findings, and the court only needed to find one ground proven, we discern no error.

(holding that the court is not bound to adopt parties’ proposed findings if inconsistent with the court’s independent assessment of the facts).

Because neither party requested findings of fact and conclusions of law, “our standard of review presumes the superior court found every fact necessary to support its decision.” ¶ 8 (App. 2024); (“A litigant must object to inadequate findings of fact .

as long as the additional findings are reasonably supported by the evidence and are not in conflict with any of the trial court's express findings.”

See Francine C. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 25 n.3 (App. 2020); (allowing the trial court to “adopt proposed findings that the parties submit” so long as “those findings are consistent with the ones that it reaches independently after properly considering the facts”).

Ultimate facts are “those necessary to resolve the disputed issues.” (citation omitted).

On the contrary, case law has long recognized that a court may adopt a party’s proposed findings as long as “those findings are consistent with the ones the court reaches independently after properly considering the facts.” (citations omitted); see also Andrea F. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 1 CA-JV 20-0074, 2021 WL 162020, at *4, ¶ 22 (Ariz. App. Jan.

-33, 137 (App. 1990) (reversing spousal support award that did not provide mathematical basis for the award and did not address all A.R.S.

(Findings must include “all of the ‘ultimate’ facts—that is, those necessary to resolve the disputed issues.”).

It must include “the ‘ultimate’ facts—that is, those necessary to resolve the disputed issues.”

See ARFLP 82(a)(1); (“A litigant must object to inadequate findings of fact and conclusions of law at the trial court level so that the court will have an opportunity to correct them.”).

at the trial court level so that the court will have an opportunity to correct them.”

A court “may adopt proposed findings that the parties submit” as long as “those findings are consistent with the ones that it reaches independently after properly considering the facts.”

And wife’s counsel, without objecting, merely stated “I just want to add that as the Court stated under the circumstances my client [is] entering into this agreement after the determination of the validity of the prenuptial agreement.” (holding a party waives an issue on appeal if it fails to object at the superior court level).