Cited by

§ 25-318(A), (B); (“Regardless of its final award, the court must recognize the existence of the separate property.”).

See Johnson, 131 Ariz. at 40-42; see also Brebaugh, 211 Ariz. at 98, ¶ 10 (explaining the court has “broad discretion to fashion approaches [for the division of community property] which will achieve the most equitable results under the facts of each case”) (internal quotation omitted); (explaining the superior court has “great discretion in the apportionment of the community assets”).

Law P. 82(a), we presume that the superior court "found every fact necessary to support the judgment" and will affirm if any reasonable construction of the evidence justifies the decision, (citation omitted).

When, as here, neither party requested findings of fact or conclusions of law, we presume that the court “found every fact necessary to support the judgment.”

Law P. 82(a), we presume that the family court "found every fact necessary to support the judgment" and will affirm if any reasonable construction of the evidence justifies the decision, (citation omitted).

Sherman, 241 Ariz. at 115 ¶ 19.

take into consideration the overall marital estate."); see also Neal v. Neal, 6 SILVA v. SILVA Decision of the Court (approving consideration of "future earning ability" in the apportionment of community obligations).

¶ 26, n.6 (App. 2004); –93 (1977) (superior court may not use nominal awards to enable the court to retain jurisdiction to modify a maintenance award in the future).

(approving consideration of "future earning ability" in the apportionment of community obligations).

¶7 “Spousal maintenance is not intended to serve ‘as a method of holding open the courtroom door for possible changes of circumstances.’” ¶ 19 (App. 2016) ().

(construing analogous Rule 52(a) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure (citations omitted)).

Because neither party requested findings of fact, we presume that the court found all facts necessary to support the property division “if the evidence on any reasonable construction justified it.”

if the court rendered it without jurisdiction due to the lack of proper service.”) (citing Koven v. Saberdyne Sys., Inc., ), and is therefore presumed from the court’s order, ( ).

Because neither party requested specific findings of fact, despite the court’s direction to make such requests prior to the hearing if so desired, we will presume the court found every fact necessary to support its judgment and will sustain the court’s judgment “if any reasonable construction of the evidence justifies it.” ( and Ziggy’s Opportunities, Inc. v. I-10 Indus.