Cited by

Those findings must be “clear” enough so that we need not infer from the record how the superior court “arrived at its mathematical figure.” ¶ 12 (App. 2015); –51 (App. 1996) (applying same principle to Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)).

how the court actually did arrive at its conclusions.” (citation modified) (explaining that 12 RICHER v. CORNELIUS Decision of the Court when a party has requested findings of fact and conclusions of law, a reviewing court “may not affirm simply because [it] may f

“The valuation of assets is a factual determination that must be based on the facts and circumstances of each case.”

In any event, this court “defer[s] to the trial court’s determination of witnesses’ credibility and the weight to give conflicting evidence.” ¶ 13 (App. 1998); (“If an expert fails to calculate the value of an asset according to standard methodology, that failure goes to the weight of the expert’s opinion.”).

(reversing maintenance award where, “[i]n ordering that the spousal maintenance continue indefinitely, the trial court did not consider the interest income wife would” receive from financial accounts awarded to her).

¶32 We review an award of spousal maintenance for an abuse of discretion, and will uphold it “if there is any reasonable evidence to support the judgment,”

A court may rely on various methods of valuing a professional practice, and 7 DION v. WRIGHT Decision of the Court it has discretion to “qualify expert witnesses who testify regarding asset valuation.”

To survive a challenge to the adequacy of the superior court’s findings, “[i]t must be clear [from the findings] how the court actually did arrive at its conclusions.” (alteration in original) ().

¶33 “The valuation of assets is a factual determination that must be based on the facts and circumstances of each case.”