Cited by

¶12 We review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 6 (App. 2018), deferring to the trial court’s determination of witness credibility and the weight to give conflicting evidence, ¶13 (App. 1998).

Even though these assets would be relevant to a spousal maintenance calculation under § 25-319(A)(1), ¶ 18 (App. 1998), Husband presented no evidence that they would provide for Wife’s reasonable needs during her lifetime.

¶ 13 (App. 1998) (reviewing courts defer to trial court’s determination of credibility).

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

¶ 13 (App. 1998); Ariz. R. Fam.

¶ 13 (App. 1998) ("We will defer to the [family] court's determination of witnesses' credibility and the weight to give conflicting evidence.").

¶10 “We review the superior court’s valuation of a business in a divorce proceeding for an abuse of discretion,” ¶ 13 (App. 2015), and consider the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the superior court’s ruling, ¶ 5 (App. 1998).

We defer to the court’s determinations regarding witness credibility, ¶ 13 (App. 1998), and we defer to the superior court’s findings of fact absent clear error.

¶ 14 (App. 2018); ¶ 14 (App. 1998).

See id.; ¶ 2, 348 ¶ 14 (App. 1998) (spousal maintenance of approximately 25% of husband’s monthly income was proper).

Sec., -52 ¶ 19 (App. 2007); -48 ¶ 136 (App. 1998).

In conducting our review, we “defer to the [superior] court’s determination of witnesses’ credibility and the weight to give conflicting evidence.” ¶ 13 (App. 1998); ¶ 16 (App. 2009) (“Even though conflicting evidence may exist, we affirm the [superior] court’s ruling if substantial evidence supports it.”).