Cited by

See Inter-Tel, 195 Ariz. at 118–19, ¶ 42 (finding no reasonable alternative where plaintiff could not find another lender due to defendant’s conduct); (rejecting claim that wife signed agreement under duress because she could have called her attorney a second time or mailed a letter when the attorney did not take her collect call), ¶ 18 (App. 2018).

However, the court must hold a hearing when there are “plainly disputed facts on the question of the fairness of the agreement, and the court was presented [with] no evidence as to the extent of the community assets.”

§ 25-317 that the court erroneously concluded the Agreement was fair and equitable and that the court failed to consider the property that was given to the parties’ children.

y challenged (1) the award of the marital home to Wife without any offset; (2) the requirement that he pay $32,000 towards the parties’ adult child’s college education; and (3) the untimely disclosure that Wife had four bank accounts, which he speculated “were utilized to transfer and hide community funds.” He requested a to ensure the settlement agreement was fair and equitable.

See Inter-Tel, 195 Ariz. at 118-19, ¶ 42 (concluding no reasonable alternative available where plaintiff could not find another lender due to defendant bank's conduct); (rejecting claim that wife signed agreement under duress because she could have called her attorney a second time or mailed a letter when her attorney did not accept her collect call), ¶ 18 (App. 2018); Pleasants v.

See, e.g. , Breitbart-Napp v. Napp , , 79, ¶ 14, , 1029 (App. 2007) ; Cohen v. Frey , , 67, ¶ 14, , 487 (App. 2007) ; Sharp v. Sharp , , 210, , 309 (App. 1994), superseded on other grounds by rule as recognized in Hutki v. Hutki , , 43, , 808 (App. 2018) ; Keller v. Keller , , 448, , 426 (App. 1983).

section 25-317(B) (2018) 1 nor Sharp v. Sharp , , requires a "fairness determination" hearing in all cases.

Rule 69 Agreement ¶16 Wife argues on appeal, as she did in her March 18, 2016 objection and motion to set aside the Rule 69 Agreement, that the court abused its discretion when it failed to independently determine that the Rule 69

(the superior court “is obliged to achieve a fair and equitable distribution of the property and is ‘not foreclosed from doing so by the parties’ .

Mother contends Father bore the burden of proving the agreement was valid.

("The trial court may approve a valid separation and property settlement agreement and incorporate it into the dissolution decree if the agreement is free from fraud or undue influence and if it is fair and equitable.").

8 ¶ 26 Here, however, the superior court did not conduct a hearing or otherwise receive *454 evidence that would allow it to alter the settlement agreement; in addition, it made none of the required statutory findings to support an award of spousal maintenance.

(remanding fee request to superior court) ( , ).