Cited by

We view the evidence in the light most favorable to affirming the judgment, id., and we defer to the superior court’s determinations on witness credibility, -48, ¶ 13 (App. 1998).

We review interpretations of statutes and guidelines de novo, ¶ 7 (App. 2015), but it is the superior court’s role to weigh the evidence and determine credibility, ¶ 13 (App. 1998).

¶ 21 (App. 2014); ¶ 5 (App. 1998).

We review a spousal maintenance award for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 9 (App. 2007), and will affirm an award if there is any reasonable evidence to support it, ¶ 14 (App. 1998).

section 25-324.” ¶ 34 (App. 1998).

We otherwise review a protective order for abuse of discretion, ¶ 10 (App. 2014), and defer to the superior court’s factual findings and credibility determinations unless clearly erroneous, ¶ 13 (App. 1998); Ariz. R. Civ.

-48 ¶ 13 (App. 1998); Hurd, 223 Ariz. at 52 ¶ 16.

¶ 14 (App. 1998) (spousal maintenance); ¶ 26 (App. 2023) (attorney fees under A.R.S.

This Court “defer[s] to the trial court’s determination of witnesses’ credibility and the weight to give conflicting evidence.” ¶ 13 (App. 1998).

See Mahar, 230 Ariz. at 534 ¶ 14 (citing cases); ¶ 13 (App. 1998).

¶ 13 (App. 1998); ¶ 16 (App. 2009).

“We will defer to the trial court’s determination of witnesses’ credibility and the weight to give conflicting evidence.” ¶ 13 (App. 1998).

See, ¶ 13 (App. 1998) (appellate courts defer to trial court’s credibility determinations); Goats v. A.J.