West v. West

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

In re the Matter of:

SCOTT WEST, Petitioner/Appellee,

v.

STACEY LEE WEST, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CV 25-0609 FC
FILED 05-07-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. FN2024-050949
The Honorable Andrew J. Russell, Judge

VACATED AND REMANDED

COUNSEL

Reardon House Colton PLC, Scottsdale
By Sally M. Colton
Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee

The Law Office of Kristen Kaffer PLLC, Phoenix
By Kristen E. Kaffer
Counsel for Respondent/Appellant
WEST v. WEST
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Andrew J. Becke and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.

T H U M M A, Judge:

¶1 Stacey Lee West (Wife) appeals from a decree of dissolution
that denied her request for spousal maintenance and rejected her claim that
Scott West (Husband) wasted community funds. As discussed below, the
decree is vacated and this matter is remanded for reconsideration of the
Spousal Maintenance Guidelines, see Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 25-
319 app. (Guidelines)1 and to further consider Wife’s waste claim.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 The parties married in 1984. Wife has two adult sons from a
prior relationship. The parties retired around 2018, when Husband was 59
and Wife was 56. They lived on savings. Both parties later received monthly
Social Security benefits. Wife’s gross monthly Social Security benefit is
$1,298, while Husband’s is $2,594. Wife now lives in the marital residence
in Arizona with one of her adult sons. Husband is living with Wife’s other
adult son in the son’s Washington home.

¶3 Husband petitioned for dissolution in May 2024. At trial, Wife
claimed the parties had substantial savings (including a retirement account)
when they retired, but it is now depleted because Husband made excessive
and abnormal expenditures without her knowledge. Husband claimed that
the parties simply lived beyond their means and depleted their savings
after retiring early.

¶4 Both parties submitted spousal maintenance worksheets.
Although Husband opposed any spousal maintenance award, his
worksheet indicated a spousal maintenance range for the benefit of Wife of
$514.22 to $726.98 a month, with a duration of 12 to 96 months. Attributing
income to Husband in addition to his Social Security benefit, Wife’s

1 The Guidelines were amended effective September 1, 2025. See A.R.S. § 25-

319 app., Credits (2025). Because the petition was filed before that date, this
decision refers to the September 1, 2025 Guidelines unless otherwise noted.

2
WEST v. WEST
Decision of the Court

worksheet showed a range for her benefit of $1,447.10 to $1,909.63, with a
duration of 12 to 96 months.

¶5 The superior court found that Wife was eligible for an award
of spousal maintenance under A.R.S. § 25-319(A). However, under A.R.S. §
25-319(B), it found Wife was not entitled to any spousal maintenance
award. The court also concluded that Wife “presented no evidence” to
show that Husband wasted community funds. This court has jurisdiction
over Wife’s timely appeal under Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona
Constitution and A.R.S. sections 12-120.21(A)(1) and -2101(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

I. Application of the Guidelines.

¶6 The court found that, although Wife was eligible for spousal
maintenance, she was not entitled to it. In doing so, it questioned whether
Wife lacked sufficient resources to support herself because she allowed her
adult son to live with her without paying rent. The court also found
Husband’s Social Security benefit was not sufficient to support him, so he
could not afford to pay spousal maintenance. The court noted that Wife
would get half the proceeds from the sale of the marital residence and was
able to work to supplement her Social Security benefits.

¶7 The court, however, did not complete a Spousal Maintenance
Worksheet using the Spousal Maintenance Calculator. See Guidelines § I(D)
(“To calculate the spousal maintenance award, use the Spousal
Maintenance Calculators found on the Supreme Court’s website,
www.azcourts.gov/familylaw/Child-Support-Family-Law-Information/
Spousal-Maintenance-Guidelines. To calculate the amount range, input
relevant data into the information fields on the worksheet.”). In 2022, the
Arizona Legislature amended A.R.S. § 25-319 and directed the Arizona
Supreme Court to establish what became the Guidelines. See Guidelines §
I(A). “The amount of spousal maintenance resulting from the application
of the [G]uidelines shall be the amount of spousal maintenance ordered by
the court, unless the court finds in writing that applying the [G]uidelines
would be inappropriate or unjust.” A.R.S. § 25-319(B).

¶8 Consistent with this statutory directive, Guidelines § I(D)
requires the court to calculate spousal maintenance under the Guidelines if
it finds a party is eligible for spousal maintenance. The court may then deny
an award of spousal maintenance if it determines the amount resulting
from the Guidelines is inappropriate or unjust. See Guidelines § I(D). To
determine whether the Guideline amount is inappropriate or unjust,

3
WEST v. WEST
Decision of the Court

however, the court must first calculate the amount the Guidelines directs.
See id. Under the Guidelines, a deviation first requires written findings
stating the range of spousal maintenance indicated under the Guidelines.
See id. § V(B)(2).

¶9 Having determined that Wife was eligible for spousal
maintenance, a finding Husband does not dispute, the court then needed to
(but failed to) determine the range by using the calculator. See id. § I(D). To
be sure, after doing so, the court could deviate from the amount range,
including making no award. See id. § V. But to do so, the court is required
to make written findings stating why the amount within the range was
inappropriate or unjust, what the amount range would have been under the
Guidelines and what the amount is after deviating. See id. § V(B).

¶10 Here, the court did not apply the calculator before concluding
that Wife was not entitled to spousal maintenance. As a result, the written
findings do not state the range as required by Guidelines § V(B)(2). Under
the Guidelines, that was error.

¶11 Husband argues that there was no deviation because
Guidelines § V(E)(5) state that it is not a deviation to deny spousal
maintenance when the parties’ combined Spousal Maintenance Income is
less than $44,000. According to Husband, the evidence showed the parties’
net Social Security benefits were less than $44,000. However, Spousal
Maintenance Income “includes income from any source before any
deductions or withholdings.” Guidelines § III(A)(1)(b) (emphasis added).
Husband’s spousal maintenance worksheet and other evidence showed
that the parties’ combined income was $47,848. Although that combined
income is just above the $44,000, it exceeds the threshold set forth in
Guidelines § V(E)(5).

¶12 As Husband concedes, when the court finds a spouse eligible
for spousal maintenance under A.R.S. § 25-319(A), it must complete the
worksheet, apply the calculator and make required written findings to
support a deviation. See Guidelines §§ I(D); V(B). Even though the court
explained its decision to deny Wife’s request for spousal maintenance, it
failed to complete the worksheet, apply the calculator and make written
findings about what the range would have been under the Guidelines. See
Guidelines §§ (I)(D); V(B)(2). Accordingly, the order denying spousal
maintenance is vacated and that issue is remanded for reconsideration.

4
WEST v. WEST
Decision of the Court

¶13 Given that remand, which may implicate application of A.R.S.
§ 25-319(B), the court turns to Wife’s argument that the court erred in
considering certain factors under that statute. In analyzing Wife’s financial
resources, see A.R.S. § 25-319(B)(9), the court found that Wife’s adult son
lived with her in the marital residence rent-free, which it concluded
“suggests” Wife “has sufficient financial resources and does not need
spousal maintenance.” The record reveals no mortgage payment on the
marital residence. And there is no evidence that Wife gave her son money
or paid his bills. Other than perhaps an unspecified amount of increased
utilities, Wife would presumably have the same living expenses if she lived
alone. Nor is there any evidence that the son paid Wife rent or that the court
attributed any rental income to Wife. For these reasons, the record does not
support a finding that Wife’s adult son living with her means she does not
need spousal maintenance.

¶14 Wife also suggests that the court should have attributed some
income to Husband because he lives with her other adult son rent-free. See
A.R.S. § 25-319(B)(4), (5). However, the evidence shows that Husband does,
at times, contribute financially and has completed some home
improvements. Thus, the record does not compel a conclusion that
Husband was living rent-free.

II. Evidence of Waste.

¶15 Wife contends the superior court erred by denying her claim
that Husband wasted community funds. The superior court may consider
a spouse’s excessive or abnormal expenditures or concealment of
community property when determining spousal maintenance and when
apportioning community property. See A.R.S. §§ 25-318(C), -319(B)(11);
Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, 193 Ariz. 343, 346 ¶ 6 (App. 1998). The spouse
claiming waste must make a prima facie showing to support the claim.
Gutierrez, 193 Ariz. at 346 ¶ 7. Then the burden shifts to the other spouse to
rebut that showing. Id. at 346-47 ¶ 7. A prima facie case requires some
evidence to support a rational inference that the allegation is true. See Kline
v. Kline, 221 Ariz. 564, 573 ¶ 35 (App. 2009).

¶16 The superior court found that Wife “presented no evidence to
support her claim” that “Husband spent community funds extravagantly
and is concealing community funds.” That finding that there was
insufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case is reviewed for an abuse
of discretion. Id.

5
WEST v. WEST
Decision of the Court

¶17 Wife presented evidence showing a prima facie case that
some of Husband’s expenditures may have been excessive or abnormal.
Husband admitted that a Vanguard retirement account had a balance of
$622,000 in 2017 when the parties retired, but only $700 in 2024. Wife
showed there were several large withdrawals totaling more than $500,000
from the community’s bank accounts in addition to the money used to buy
houses. Wife testified that, other than buying houses, she was unaware of
the large withdrawals; rather she thought Husband withdrew a couple of
thousand dollars a month for living expenses. As in Gutierrez, 193 Ariz. at
347 ¶ 8, evidence of these multiple, large withdrawals that could not be
directly traced to a community expense constituted a prima facie showing
sufficient to shift the burden on Husband to explain the withdrawals.

¶18 Wife also showed that, a few months before he filed the
petition for dissolution, Husband opened two bank accounts to which she
had no access, and that he deposited $90,000 in community funds into one
of those accounts. In evaluating whether Wife made a prima facie showing
of waste, this timing supports an inference of concealing community funds.
See Goodell v. Goodell, 257 Ariz. 563, 571-72 ¶ 36 (App. 2024).

¶19 Husband counters that he provided a reasonable explanation
for the dissipation of the community funds and disputed Wife’s ignorance
of their spending. To be sure, Husband testified that the parties spent
retirement and other community funds on community expenses. Although
he could not account for all funds that Wife questioned, he explained that
several of the large withdrawals were used to buy houses, a lot, a motor
home, cars, vacations, expensive appliances, home renovations and to pay
for general living expenses and taxes. He denied spending community
funds on non-community expenses or diverting community funds to
separate accounts. He also claimed that Wife was aware of the purchases.

¶20 The parties clearly presented conflicting evidence. But the
record does not show that conflicting evidence was weighed and assessed.
Instead, the court concluded that Wife presented “no evidence,” which was
incorrect. On appeal, this court does not determine witness credibility or
weigh and assess conflicting evidence. See Gutierrez, 193 Ariz. at 347-48 ¶
13; see also Pugh v. Cook, 153 Ariz. 246, 247 (App. 1987). Because Wife did
make a prima facie showing, but no findings were made about Husband’s
rebuttal evidence, the waste finding is vacated and the issue is remanded
to consider whether Husband rebutted the showing of waste.

6
WEST v. WEST
Decision of the Court

ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS ON APPEAL

¶21 Husband requests attorneys’ fees and costs on appeal under
A.R.S. § 25-324. After considering the parties’ financial resources and the
reasonableness of their positions, that request is denied. Wife is entitled to
an award of her taxable costs on appeal under A.R.S. § 12-342 contingent
upon her compliance with ARCAP 21.

CONCLUSION

¶22 The spousal maintenance and waste portion of the decree is
vacated and remanded for reconsideration consistent with this decision.

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

7