Biltis v. Biltis

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE

LEIGH NYVEEN BILTIS, Petitioner,

v.

JACK CHARLES BILTIS, Respondent.

No. 1 CA-SA 25-0210
FILED 01-30-2026

Petition for Special Action from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. FC2022-051165
The Honorable Julie Ann Mata, Judge

JURISDICTION ACCEPTED; RELIEF GRANTED IN PART

COUNSEL

The Cavanagh Law Firm, PA, Phoenix
By Christina S. Hamilton
Counsel for Petitioner

Berkshire Law Office, PLLC, Tempe
By Keith Berkshire, Alexandra Sandlin, Elizabeth Nañez
Counsel for Respondent
 BILTIS v. BILTIS
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge David B. Gass delivered the decision of the court, in which
Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge Andrew J. Becke joined.

G A S S, Judge:

¶1 Wife Leigh Nyveen Biltis seeks special action review of the
superior court’s order setting a supersedeas bond for husband Jack Charles
Biltis. The court accepts special action jurisdiction and grants relief by
vacating that portion of the order requiring wife to post with the superior
court $667,650 in proceeds from the sale of the Scottsdale residence. The
court denies any further relief.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

I. In the dissolution decree and later orders, the superior court
awarded wife $5,250,900.23 plus an undetermined amount for her
waste claim related to the Paradise Valley Residence.

¶2 The superior court entered a dissolution decree after a
contested hearing. This special action and the pending appeal involve
matters related to the superior court’s division of property orders.

¶3 In the property division, the superior court entered a
judgment for wife against husband. The superior court set $5,094,000 as the
total fixed award in wife’s favor on the property division. That amount
included $3 million for wife’s equity in a wholly owned community
business and $2,094,000 for wife’s equity in a minority owned business
under Schickner v. Schickner, 237 Ariz. 194, 198 ¶ 17 (App. 2015). That
judgment did not include 2 items. First, the superior court awarded wife
$156,900.23 for her attorney fees and costs. Second, the fixed amount did
not include the final value of wife’s waste claim against husband.

¶4 In the decree, the superior court left the waste claim’s value
as a variable based on a formula the superior court devised. The value of
wife’s waste claim arises because the parties over-financed the construction
of their Paradise Valley residence. Husband argued the Paradise Valley
house had a value of $44 million. Other evidence, including 2 appraisals,
placed the value at about $25 million. The amount the parties owe on the
Paradise Valley house remains an open question because it depends on the

2
 BILTIS v. BILTIS
Decision of the Court

amount of builder’s construction lien and the final sale price. Based on the
above, the superior court determined a formula for calculating that waste
claim: 50% of the amount owed to the builder when the Paradise Valley
residence sells.

¶5 The decree required husband to make monthly payments of
$10,000 on his property obligations under the decree. The first $5,000
monthly amount was for husband’s Schickner $2,094,000 obligation to wife
until he fully paid the balance. The second $5,000 monthly amount was for
husband’s obligation for wife’s waste claim, the final amount of which had
not been determined. On top of the monthly payments, the superior court
ordered husband to pay one-half of both balances in 2 years and the
remaining balances with a balloon payment at 8 years.

¶6 With the above, the total award in wife’s favor was
$5,250,900.23, which includes $156,900.23 in attorney fees and costs, with
the total value of the waste claim yet to be determined.

II. The superior court also awarded wife husband’s one-half interest
in the Scottsdale residence, which the superior court valued at
$667,650.

¶7 The decree awarded wife the Scottsdale residence. If wife
could not timely refinance the Scottsdale residence to remove husband
from the mortgage, then wife had to sell it. Husband was to receive credit
against his $5,250,900.23 obligation to wife for his 50% interest in the net
proceeds.

¶8 Before wife sold the Scottsdale residence, the superior court
valued husband’s 50% credit at $667,650. The superior court set that value
based on its earlier order finding the net proceeds would be $1,335,300. The
superior court made that earlier finding because both husband and wife
asked it to do so even though the Scottsdale residence had not sold. And
for a time, no one objected to that amount.

¶9 Wife now argues that amount is too high based on the actual
sale. Wife alleges the total net proceeds ended up being $851,684.09, making
husband’s share just $425,842.04. The difference is $241,807.96.

¶10 Nothing in the record shows wife asked the superior court to
address this issue before raising it in this special action. Instead, an
appendix to wife’s special action petition is a document from Chicago Title
Agency Inc. dated June 5, 2025, purporting to be a final master statement
for the sale of the Scottsdale residence. The date on that statement is long

3
 BILTIS v. BILTIS
Decision of the Court

after the superior court set the $667,650 amount and several weeks after the
superior court set the supersedeas bond. The parties provided the record,
and nothing in that record discusses that statement or the actual sale
amount. And nothing in the record suggests wife asked the superior court
to reduce the $667,650 based on the actual sale amount.

III. The mathematics of the amended supersedeas bond, which is the
subject of this special action, generally are not in dispute.

¶11 The parties actively litigated the supersedeas bond before the
superior court, resulting in several changes before wife brought it to the
court as a special action. Ultimately, the superior court required husband
to post a $4,583,250.23 bond. The amount was based on how much husband
owed wife under the decree exclusive of the undetermined waste judgment
($5,250,900.23) less a credit for husband’s one-half share of the Scottsdale
residence net sale proceeds ($667,650).

¶12 Wife says husband did not ask the superior court to order
wife to deposit $667,650 of the sale proceeds into a restricted account. But
he did. In Husband’s Position Statement for Oral Argument on Supersedeas
Bond and Stay, he wrote:

Husband requests that each of these orders be stayed until an
appeal can be resolved, and that Husband’s 50% of the sale
proceeds from the Scottsdale house ($667,650 based on the
$1,335,300 value per the court’s January 8, 2025 ruling), be
held in a restricted account as collateral for the bond. This
total collateral and offset of $83[1],998.50 ($667,650 +
$164,348.50) should be more than sufficient as a bond pending
appeal.

Using that formula, the superior court ordered husband to post $164,348.50
(or less than 20%) of his proposed supersedeas bond and then ordered wife
to post $667,650 (or more than 80%) of the proposed supersedeas bond.

¶13 But the superior court then went a step further. The superior
court also credited husband with the $667,650 by reducing the supersedeas
bond by that amount in addition to ordering wife to post the $667,650 as
part of husband’s supersedeas bond, saying:

Regarding Respondent’s equity in the Scottsdale Home of
$667,650, the Court concludes it should have considered this
in the bond determination, as the Decree factored this equity
into the Sch[i]ckner Judgment. It is the Court’s understanding

4
 BILTIS v. BILTIS
Decision of the Court

that attempts are currently being made to sell the Scottsdale
Home. The Court agrees with Respondent that permitting
Petitioner to obtain all the proceeds of the Scottsdale Home
would be, in effect, collecting on the Sch[i]ckner Judgment.

Therefore, in order to allow the home to be sold while still
preserving the status quo pending appeal, the Court
concludes that depositing [husband’s] share of the equity in
the Scottsdale Home with the Clerk of the Court after sale of
the home and pending the appeal is appropriate.

The superior court summed up its reasoning as follows:

The Court therefore concludes that an appropriate bond
amount would constitute the total, quantifiable amount of the
judgments in the Decree, plus the Fees and Costs Judgment,
minus Respondent’s equity in the Scottsdale Home, which, as
set forth above, will be deposited with the Clerk of the Court
pending Respondent’s appeal. The total, quantifiable amount
of the judgments against Respondent is $5,250,900.23,
comprised of the TAG CB Judgment ($3,000,000), the
Schickner Judgment ($2,094,000) and Fees and Costs Judgment
($156,900.23). Subtracting Respondent’s 50% equity in the
Scottsdale Home of $667,650 from the Schickner Judgment
leaves the total quantifiable amount of $4,583,250.23.

¶14 In setting the supersedeas bond, the superior court declined
to include any amount for husband’s monthly $5,000 obligation based on
waste. The superior court explained:

Regarding the Waste Judgment, the Decree provided that it
be paid at the rate of $5,000 per month with a balloon payment
for half in 2 years and the balance due in a balloon payment
in eight years. But again, the problem with security for such a
judgment is that the amount has yet to be ascertained.
Accordingly, any attempt to order a bond amount may result
in, on the one hand, inadequate security, and on the other
excessive security, and in neither of those situations is the
status quo maintained. The Court accordingly declines to
alter its March 3, 2025 ruling regarding the Waste Judgment.
The Court reiterates that once the Waste Judgment becomes
quantifiably ascertainable, it will reconsider this issue.

5
 BILTIS v. BILTIS
Decision of the Court

SPECIAL ACTION JURISDICTION

¶15 Because this matter involves a challenge to a supersedeas
bond, the court accepts special action jurisdiction. Supersedeas bond issues
tend “to evade review” on appeal because the issues “become moot before
an appeal.” Ariz. R. P. Spec. Act. 12(b)(5). For that reason, wife has no
“equally plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal” in this family
court matter. Bobrow v. Herrod, 239 Ariz. 180, 182 ¶ 6 (App. 2016) (granting
special action jurisdiction when former spouse challenges a supersedeas
bond). The court thus appropriately exercises special action jurisdiction
here. Id.

DISCUSSION

¶16 The court reviews the superior court’s rulings on a
supersedeas bond for abuse of discretion. Kellin v. Lynch, 247 Ariz. 393, 396–
97 ¶ 13 (App. 2019). “Absent statutes or rules to the contrary, a court has
the inherent discretion and power to allow for flexibility in the
determination of the nature and extent of the security required to stay the
execution of the judgment pending appeal.” Id. (quotation omitted).

¶17 “The [superior] court abuses its discretion when it makes an
error of law in reaching a discretionary conclusion or when the record,
viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the [superior] court’s
decision, is devoid of competent evidence to support the decision.”
Michaelson v. Garr, 234 Ariz. 542, 544 ¶ 5 (App. 2014) (quotation omitted).
The court does not reweigh evidence on appeal. Hurd v. Hurd, 223 Ariz. 48,
52 ¶ 16 (App. 2009).

I. In 2019, the Arizona Supreme Court adopted Rule 7(a)(7), giving
the superior court broad discretion when setting supersedeas
bonds for family court judgments.

¶18 A supersedeas bond serves as security a party posts “to stay
enforcement of or execution on a judgment while an appeal is pending.”
Lynch, 247 Ariz. at 396–97 ¶ 13. “[T]he purpose of posting a supersedeas
bond is to preserve the status quo pending appeal.” Id.

¶19 Before 2019, the same rule governing supersedeas bonds for
civil judgments (Rule 7(a)(4), Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure)
applied to family court judgments too. See Scott v. Bronstein, 259 Ariz. 199,
203 ¶ 7 (App. 2025). In 2019, that changed when the Arizona Supreme Court
adopted a rule just for family court judgments. Ariz. R. Civ. App. Pro.
7(a)(7). Rule 7(a)(7) says:

6
 BILTIS v. BILTIS
Decision of the Court

For that portion of any family court judgment that divides
assets or orders the transfer of property or money under
A.R.S. § 25-318, or that awards costs or expenses under A.R.S.
§ 25-324, the superior court must determine the amount of the
bond, if any, that the requesting party must post, taking into
account the judgment as a whole and whether requiring a
bond would impose an undue hardship.

¶20 Because of that 2019 change, Rule 7(a)(4)’s formula for civil
judgments no longer applies to family court judgments. Instead, Rule
7(a)(4) says it applies “[e]xcept for family court judgments governed by
Rule 7(a)(7).” Bronstein, 259 Ariz. at 202 ¶ 8 (ruling “the rule’s text . . .
explicitly reserves the 7(a)(4) formula for judgments not governed by Rule
7(a)(7)”).

¶21 Rule 7(a)(7) does not establish a formula to calculate a
supersedeas bond for family court judgments. Instead, the superior court
“must determine the amount of the bond . . . ‘taking into account the
judgment as a whole and whether requiring a bond would impose an
undue hardship.’” Id. (interpreting Rule 7(a)(7)). In doing so, the superior
court must set an appropriate bond “to preserve the status quo or the
effectiveness of the judgment.” Id. (quoting Rule 7(a)(2)).

¶22 Summarizing those points, the superior court must consider
3 factors when setting a supersedeas bond for a family court judgment:

1. The totality of the circumstances of the family court judgment, as in
take “into account the judgment as a whole,”
2. Whether imposing a supersedeas bond would impose an undue
hardship on the appealing party, and
3. What is necessary to preserve the status quo.

See id. at ¶ 10.

¶23 After considering those 3 factors, the superior court “can
make downward deviations from a judgment’s value in fixing the amount
of a supersedeas bond.” Id. at 202 ¶ 11. Indeed, the superior court may
decline to “to set ‘any’ supersedeas bond by considering ‘whether requiring
a bond would impose an undue hardship.’” Id. (quoting Rule 7(a)(9)(B)).

II. It was an abuse of discretion to require wife, the party who did not
request the stay, to deposit $667,650 with the court for assets
awarded to her in the decree.

7
 BILTIS v. BILTIS
Decision of the Court

¶24 One thing did not change when the Arizona Supreme Court
adopted Rule 7(a)(7) in 2019: Who must post the security for the bond. It is
the party who asks to stay the judgment and no one else.

¶25 Rule 7(a)(5) says, “If the judgment includes the recovery of an
interest in real or personal property, the superior court must determine the
amount of the bond, if any, that the requesting party must post.” Here, that
person is husband, not wife. And though the superior court has broad
discretion when determining the supersedeas bond amount under Rule
7(a)(7), that discretion does not extend to requiring the non-appealing party
to post assets awarded to that party in the decree, whatever the reason for
the award.

¶26 Husband argues the superior court was merely staying that
portion of the award based on the idea allowing wife to retain it was
collecting on a debt. Not so. Husband does not explain how reducing the
amount of the bond by $667,650 and then requiring wife to post that amount
serves as security to justify staying wife’s enforcement of husband’s
obligations while husband’s appeal is pending. See Kellin, 247 Ariz. at 396–
97 ¶ 13.

¶27 The supersedeas bond here secures the debt husband owes
wife under the decree. It protects wife’s interest under the decree while
preserving the status quo. Requiring wife to post one-half of the net
proceeds from the sale of property awarded to her in the decree has the
opposite effect. It protects husband’s potential interest if he prevails on
appeal and then again prevails on remand.

¶28 In short, the superior court awarded husband no interest in
the Scottsdale residence. It awarded it all to wife. Husband received an
offset from his other debt obligations under the decree based on what his
community interest in the Scottsdale residence would have been. But under
the decree, the net proceeds from the sale—all of them—belong to wife.

¶29 It thus was an abuse of discretion to adjust the bond amount
by making wife post $667,650 for 2 reasons. First, there was no authority to
require wife to post anything awarded to her with respect to husband’s
supersedeas bond. Second, even if there was authority to impose the
obligation on wife, when the superior court made wife post that amount
while also reducing husband’s bond obligation, husband received double
the adjustment. Under a totality of the circumstances, doubling the
adjustment goes beyond what is necessary to preserve the status quo.

8
 BILTIS v. BILTIS
Decision of the Court

III. The superior court did not abuse its discretion when it decreased
husband’s bond obligation by $667,650 based on a credit for his
debt obligation that ruled husband’s supersedeas bond did not
have to cover any amount for the Schickner award to wife but to
husband.
¶30 Before the supersedeas bond became an issue, the superior
court valued husband’s equity interest in the Scottsdale residence at
$667,650. The superior court then used that amount when it calculated the
supersedeas bond. Wife argues the superior court should have used
$425,842.04—the value of husband’s community interest based on the
actual sale. The record does not support wife’s requested relief.

¶31 First, the parties, including wife, asked the superior court to
value that interest before the supersedeas bond issue arose. It did as they
requested. Second, wife concedes it was appropriate to reduce the
supersedeas bond by husband’s community interest in the Scottsdale
residence. And third, nothing in the record before the court shows wife
asked the superior court to reduce the supersedeas bond based on the final
sale amount.

¶32 Wife does not support her special action by citing any alleged
error by the superior court. Instead, wife argues, “On special action, it is
right for this Court to modify the credit Husband was to receive to the
amount equal to half the net proceeds and then have Husband post
additional bond to cover that reduction in the credit (i.e. another $241,808
should be posted to stay enforcement).” But the court’s standard of review
is whether the superior court abused its discretion.

¶33 The court cannot say the superior court erred, let alone
abused its discretion, because it did not increase husband’s bond based on
the $241,807.96 difference what wife says is the actual sale amount and what
the superior court found at wife’s request before the actual sale when the
court can identify no evidence wife ever asked the superior to do so.

IV. The superior court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to
increase the supersedeas bond based on wife’s waste claim but
still stayed husband’s $5,000 monthly payment obligation on that
claim.

¶34 The superior court explained its reason for staying the waste
claim without requiring husband to post any added amount on the
supersedeas bond. The superior court said, “the problem with security for
such a judgment is that the amount has yet to be ascertained. Accordingly,

9
 BILTIS v. BILTIS
Decision of the Court

any attempt to order a bond amount may result in, on the one hand,
inadequate security, and on the other excessive security, and in neither of
those situations is the status quo maintained.”

¶35 The superior court thus considered the totality of the
circumstances and what was necessary to preserve the status quo. Scott, 259
Ariz. at 203 ¶ 9. The superior court could “make downward deviations from
a judgment’s value in fixing the amount of a supersedeas bond.” Id. at ¶ 11.
But wife instead essentially asks the court to reweigh the evidence on
appeal, which the court will not do. See Hurd, 223 Ariz. at 52 ¶ 16.

¶36 The court thus cannot say the superior court committed an
error of law or its reasoning was “devoid of competent evidence.”
Michaelson, 234 Ariz. at 544 ¶ 5.

ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS

¶37 Wife and husband both seek an award for attorney fees and
cost under A.R.S. § 25-324 and Rule 17, Arizona Rules of Special Action.
Because wife was only partially successful in this special action, the court
exercises its discretion and declines her request. The court exercises its
discretion and awards husband his reasonable attorney fees and costs upon
his compliance with Rule 21, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure.

CONCLUSION

¶38 The court thus accepts special action jurisdiction. The court
further vacates that portion of the supersedeas bond order requiring wife
to post $667,650 in proceeds from the sale of the Scottsdale residence. The
court denies any further relief.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

10