Cited by

Hart, 220 Ariz. at 187-88, ¶¶ 16, 19; -36 (App. 1996).

at 113-14, ¶¶ 12, 15-16; -37 (App. 1996) (affirming the attribution of income to an unemployed father who was on disability because his work history and education supported the finding that he was capable of gainful employment).

P. 37(c)(3)(A); (monetary sanctions “should bear some relationship to the expenses directly caused by the sanctionable conduct”).

See Villa De Jardines Ass’n v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, ¶ 25 (App. 2011); see also Boone, 145 Ariz. at 241 (“[C]ounsel is required only to make an investigation [of facts and law] which is reasonable under the circumstances that exist at the time of filing the pleading.”); (the sanctions authorized “are discretionary,” but are to be “’appropriate’ .

(discussing sanctions imposed under Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure).

(recognizing trial court’s discretion in fashioning sanction with appropriate “relationship to the expenses directly caused by the sanctionable conduct”).

I d.; , (upholding attribution of income to disabled parent found capable of being employed).

–41 (App. 1996); see also, e.g., Ariz. R. Civ.

See, -37, -15 (App. 1996) (affirming child support award based upon income attributed to unemployed parent who had a college degree, prior experience in accounting and computer programming, and fairly solid work history for many years); (App.

Guidelines § 5(E) (if a parent is unemployed or working below full earning capacity, the family court may consider the reasons and “may attribute income to a parent up to his or her earning capacity”)

note to 1984 amend.; (characterizing Rule 16(f) as “discovery rule[]”).

(citing Standage v. Jaburg & Wilk, , and James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc. v. Lake Havasu Plumbing & Fire Protection, , ).