Cited by

2 We presume the missing transcript would support the court’s ruling, , further, we rely on the court’s statements—made throughout trial— as to the rulings, their scope, and the court’s rationale.

¶ 10 (App. 2014) (holding no findings of fact in support of a fee request determination are necessary 5 NOORDA v. RASOR Decision of the Court unless requested).

§ 25-324(A)); ¶ 9 (App. 2014) (citations omitted) (holding that although the court must consider both reasonableness and financial disparity, the court has discretion to award fees on either factor).

§ 25-318(C); (court may award money to one spouse to compensate for other spouse’s dissipation of community assets), ¶ 8 (App. 2014).

(“Where foreseeable circumstances exist that could fundamentally alter the ability of a spouse to provide for his or her reasonable needs, a nominal award of spousal maintenance is not improper”), ¶ 8

–95, ¶ 10 (App. 2014) (citation omitted); see also A.R.S.

2 ADES/CELIUS v. CELIUS Decision of the Court transcripts and other documents necessary to consider the issues raised on appeal.” ¶ 11 (App. 2014).

§ 25-324(A) (“On request of a party or another court of competent jurisdiction, the court shall make specific findings concerning the portions of any award of fees and expenses that are based on consideration of financial resources and that are based on consideration of reasonableness of positions.”); ¶ 10 (App. 2014) (“‘There is no obligation for the trial court to make findings of fact under [A.R.S.]

The superior court “has the discretion to deny a fee request even 6 WOOTTON v. BLAIR Decision of the Court after considering both statutory factors.” ¶ 9 (App. 2014).

¶ 6, (citation omitted).

§ 25-324.” ¶ 10, ( ¶ 39, ).

§ 25-318(C)), Martin, 156 Ariz. at 458, ¶ 8 (App. 2014)).

Moreover, financial “disparity alone does not mandate an award of fees.” ¶9 (App. 2014).

‘[T]he reasonableness of the positions each party has taken’ is an additional consideration under the current statute.” ¶ 9, (alteration in original) (quoting A.R.S.

(recognizing the family court is in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses, and the appellate court gives deference to its determination), ¶ 8, Estate of Reinen v. N. Ariz. Orthopedics, Ltd., ¶ 12, (stating that the superior court is not bound to accept even the uncontradicted evidence of an interested party).