Villanueva v. Bowers

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

NATASHIA LYNN VILLANUEVA, Petitioner/Appellant,

v.

CORD CHANTRY BOWERS, Respondent/Appellee.

No. 1 CA-CV 25-0345 FC
FILED 06-11-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County
No. S8015DO202400364
The Honorable Richard D. Lambert, Judge

VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED

COUNSEL

Natashia Villanueva, Galena, OH
Petitioner/Appellant

Berkshire Law Office PLLC, Tempe, AZ
By Keith Berkshire, Alexandra Sandlin, Elizabeth Nanez, Alicia Derr
Counsel for Respondent/Appellee
VILLANUEVA v. BOWERS
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge James B. Morse Jr. delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Andrew M. Jacobs and Judge Brian Y. Furuya joined.

M O R S E, Judge:

¶1 Natashia Villanueva ("Mother") appeals the superior court's
child support order. For the following reasons, we vacate the order and
remand.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Mother and Cord Bowers ("Father") divorced in Texas in 2015.
In 2018, Mother lived in Iowa, and the Texas court awarded Father sole
legal decision-making authority for the parties' three children, named him
the primary residential parent, and granted Mother limited parenting time
in Texas. The court continued Mother's obligation to pay $334.54 in child
support each month as set forth in the dissolution decree.

¶3 Father later relocated to Mohave County with the children. In
June 2024, Mother—who then resided in Ohio—registered the Texas decree
and modification order in Arizona and petitioned to modify legal decision-
making authority, parenting time, and child support.

¶4 After a hearing, the superior court found a significant and
continuing change in circumstances warranted modifying the previous
orders. It granted Father sole legal decision-making authority and
designated him the primary residential parent. The court ordered that
Mother have parenting time on holidays and school breaks and required
her to exercise that parenting time in Mohave County. The superior court
also modified Mother's child support payment from $344.54 per month to
$1,997 per month.

¶5 Mother appealed the superior court's modification order. We
have jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(2).

DISCUSSION

¶6 Mother challenges the superior court's child support order,
arguing the court abused its discretion by imputing income to her without

2
VILLANUEVA v. BOWERS
Decision of the Court

competent evidence. Mother also challenged the legal decision-making and
parenting time orders, but after the superior court modified those orders on
March 10, 2026, the parties agreed that her appeal of those rulings is moot.

I. Waiver under ARCAP 13.

¶7 Mother's opening and reply briefs failed to comply with
ARCAP Rule 13 and Arizona Rule of the Supreme Court 111(c)(1). Mother's
opening brief contained citations to a non-existent case, citations to cases
with incorrect and impossible pin cites, citations to a memorandum
decision issued before 2015, and other errors. Father noted these issues in
his answering brief and argued Mother's arguments should be considered
waived. Mother responded to this argument by denying the errors and
insisting her citations were correct. This Court ordered Mother to file a
supplemental brief to address her citation problems, and she then confessed
she used generative artificial intelligence to produce her briefs and failed to
check the accuracy of her briefs' citations.

¶8 We may consider an argument waived if it is "not supported
by adequate explanation, citations to the record, or authority." Ramos v.
Nichols, 252 Ariz. 519, 522, ¶ 8 (App. 2022) (quoting In re Aubuchon, 233 Ariz.
62, 64–65, ¶ 6 (2013)). Mother's briefs are inadequately supported by legal
authority. But waiver is a discretionary doctrine. Logan B. v. Dep't of Child
Safety, 244 Ariz. 532, 536, ¶ 9 (App. 2018). We generally decline to find
waiver when a child's best interests are at issue. Solorzano v. Jensen, 250
Ariz. 348, 350, ¶ 8 (App. 2020). Because the calculation of child support
affects the best interests of the children here, we decline to find waiver. See
id.

II. Child Support.

¶9 We review a superior court's award of child support for an
abuse of discretion and accept its findings of fact unless they are clearly
erroneous. Engel v. Landman, 221 Ariz. 504, 510, ¶ 21 (App. 2009). The
Arizona Child Support Guidelines, A.R.S. § 25-320 app. ("Guidelines") state
that child support income—income for purposes of calculating child
support—includes income from any source. Guidelines § II.A.1.a–b.
Mother did not give the superior court any tax returns, paystubs, or wage
and tax statements to establish her income for purposes of calculating child
support. The Affidavit of Financial Information ("AFI") she submitted to
the court listed gross monthly income of $2,511, monthly expenses of
$10,480, and debt totaling $2,088. Mother indicated that she had paid her
attorney $20,000 in fees and noted the source of those funds as "self." She

3
VILLANUEVA v. BOWERS
Decision of the Court

left blank the portion of the AFI requesting her total gross income for the
last three tax years.

¶10 At the evidentiary hearing, Mother testified that she owns a
business and her income from the business varies monthly. She stated:

There's some times I will have a really good month, where I'll
do a lot of jobs, and I'll make—I'll bank personally, maybe
35—40—5 grand tops, monthly. There's other months, for
example, winter months where you don't really work in the
winter. * * * So in the winter months I bring home, I mean, let's
see, I brought home $2,300 in the winter months.

¶11 Mother also testified that she had not filed a tax return for the
prior two years and did not know her income for those years.

¶12 The superior court found Mother's testimony vague and
abstract and determined that the $2,511 gross income listed in her AFI was
not credible given her $10,000 monthly expenses. It concluded that Mother
makes at least $10,000 per month, "if not substantially more."

¶13 Although Mother claims her uncontroverted testimony
established that her income fluctuates and averages around $2,500 per
month, that is not supported by the record. She testified that $2,500 was
her income in a slower month, not her average income.

¶14 Further, we are not persuaded by Mother's argument that the
superior court erred by rejecting her testimony and the $2,511 income she
claimed in her AFI without any "contrary testimony, expert analysis, or
vocational evidence." As the trier of fact, the superior court determines the
credibility of witnesses and the weight to give their testimony and other
evidence. Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, 193 Ariz. 343, 347, ¶ 13 (App. 1998). It could
consider Mother's testimony and exhibits in deciding how to resolve the
petition to modify child support. We will not reweigh the evidence or
second-guess the court's credibility determinations. Id.

¶15 By way of explaining why her monthly expenses greatly
exceed her income, Mother notes that she receives financial assistance from
her partner for her living expenses. She maintains the superior court erred
by not crediting this testimony. Again, we will not reweigh the evidence or
second-guess the court's credibility determinations. Id. We note, however,
that Mother testified that her partner had only started providing financial
assistance after she completed the AFI and she admitted that she had

4
VILLANUEVA v. BOWERS
Decision of the Court

offered the court no evidence of the amount of her partner's contribution to
her living expenses.

¶16 Finally, Mother contends the superior court failed to follow
the Guidelines, which require the court to base any attribution of income
on an analysis of specific factors, including past work history, occupational
qualifications, and the availability of work. See Guidelines, § II.A.4.d. The
superior court presumes that a parent is capable of full-time employment
and may attribute income to a parent for purposes of calculating child
support when the parent is unemployed or working below his or her full
earning capacity. Little v. Little, 193 Ariz. 518, 520–21, ¶ 6 (1999); Guidelines
§ II.A.4. That is not what happened here. There is no dispute that Mother
works at her full earning capacity; the question is how much money she
makes. The court did not attribute income to Mother, it determined the
amount of her income based on the evidence presented at the hearing. The
court found that Mother had offered no credible evidence of her income
and did not abuse its discretion by determining Mother's income at least
equaled her monthly expenses. Gutierrez, 193 Ariz. at 347, ¶ 13.

¶17 However, the superior court's finding that Mother has income
of $10,000 per month is not supported by the record. The court based this
amount on the expenses Mother identified in her AFI. But, $3,400 of the
expenses listed on Mother's AFI were designated as "anticipated" expenses
for the children, not actual expenses that Mother had been paying with her
income. While the superior court did not abuse its discretion by treating
Mother's expenses as a proxy for her current income in the absence of other
evidence, the court should only have included Mother's current expenses,
not her anticipated future expenses.

III. Attorney Fees on Appeal.

¶18 Both Mother and Father request attorney fees on appeal.
Mother requests attorney fees under ARCAP 21(a), but ARCAP 21 does not
create a substantive right to attorney fees. Bed Mart, Inc. v. Kelley, 202 Ariz.
370, 375, ¶ 24 (App. 2002). Additionally, Mother only requested attorney
fees in her reply brief, in violation of ARCAP 21(a)(1). ARCAP 21(a)(1) ("A
party claiming attorneys' fees must do so in an opening or an answering
brief on appeal."). Because Mother failed to identify applicable authority to
justify her request for attorney fees, her request is denied. See Bank of New
York Mellon v. Dodev, 246 Ariz. 1, 12, ¶ 41 (App. 2018).

¶19 Father requested attorney fees under A.R.S. § 25-324. As
previously discussed, supra ¶ 7, Mother's briefs on appeal contained

5
VILLANUEVA v. BOWERS
Decision of the Court

numerous citation errors and presented false and inapposite legal
authority. When confronted by Father, Mother doubled down and lied to
the Court in her reply brief instead of admitting to her use of artificial
intelligence. Mother's behavior on appeal is unreasonable. We award
Father his reasonable attorney fees and costs under A.R.S. § 25-324 and
ARCAP 25 upon compliance with ARCAP 21.

CONCLUSION

¶20 For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the child support order
and remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

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

6