Cited by

(“Property settlements, spousal maintenance awards, and child support awards involve distinct considerations.”).

(without evidence supporting the court’s deviation, it must be set aside for an abuse of discretion); (“[W]e must be able to determine which evidence formed the bases of the awards before we can affirm them.”).

the court, if requested before trial, shall find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon.” (emphasis added); (requiring the trial court to make findings of all ultimate facts when a party submits a timely request pursuant to Rule 52(a)).

(stating that except in cases where a party requests findings of facts, when the basis on which a court reached a certain conclusion is not clear, the “appellate court may infer that the trial court has made the additional findings necessary to sustain its judgment,” and that this “principle applies a

(noting that, after the court finds one requirement is met, additional requirements need not be analyzed because A.R.S.

¶ 40, (providing that the appellate court addresses arguments not ruled upon by trial court “only when the record is so fully developed that the facts and inferences are perfectly clear”); (providing that where basis for ruling is unclear, “it is not enough that the appellate court is able to derive bases on which the trial court could have permissibly reached the decision it did from the record”) (citation omitted).

§ 25-319(A) is present) ().

-26, ¶¶ 3, 5 (App. 2002); -33 (App. 1990) (remanding for findings of fact and conclusions of law in compliance with Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 52, the civil counterpart to Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure 82).

Generally, “when a 4 LYNCH v. BRAKEBILL Decision of the Court timely request for findings is submitted, the trial court must make findings concerning all of the ultimate facts.” ( ).

To comply with the findings and conclusions requirement, “[i]t must be clear” from the record how the court “arrive[d] at its conclusions.” (citation omitted).

An abuse of discretion may occur if the family court fails to address a factor “with respect to which the parties presented evidence.”

(when a request for findings of fact has been made, the court must “address all of the factors with respect to which the parties presented evidence” and “set forth the mathematical basis of the spousal maintenance award”).

(appellate court may not infer additional findings necessary to support the judgment if they are contradicted by the ruling).

n.1, n.1 (App. 1990); Guidelines § 20(A).

Although normally we will infer factual findings necessary to support the judgment of the superior court, see id.; that rule does not apply when, as here, a party asked the superior court to make findings of fact

(noting that the court was required to consider evidence that wife presented regarding factors six and seven of § 25-329(B)).

(parties must object to inadequate findings and conclusions before appealing to afford the trial court a cure opportunity).

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

The court may abuse its discretion if it fails to apply one of the applicable factors “with respect to which the parties presented evidence.”