## Facts

- Husband (age 76) and Wife (age 55) married in January 2006.
- Before marriage, Husband owned the “Sugar Creek” residence; Wife and her son owned the “Queen Valley” residence.
- Shortly after marriage, Husband deeded Sugar Creek into community property with right of survivorship; Queen Valley title remained with Wife and her son.
- During a short marriage (about one year), the parties incurred more than $61,000 in debt, much of it for improvements to Queen Valley.
- At least $32,000 was spent improving Queen Valley, funded substantially by a $30,000 home-equity loan secured by Sugar Creek and additional consumer credit.
- Husband filed for annulment; Wife sought dissolution. The annulment was denied and not challenged on appeal.
- In the dissolution decree, the family court found an approximately equal allocation would be inequitable and entered a substantially unequal division:
  - Sugar Creek was awarded entirely to Husband (subject to encumbrances, including the home-equity loan).
  - Queen Valley was awarded to Wife.
  - Improvement-related debt was treated as community debt and allocated primarily to Husband, with a smaller portion to Wife.

## Issues

1. Whether the family court abused its discretion under A.R.S. § 25-318 and Toth v. Toth by ordering a substantially unequal distribution of marital assets and debts, including awarding Husband all of Sugar Creek and allocating most Queen Valley improvement debt to him.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the dissolution decree.
- The court held the family court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a substantially unequal division of community assets and debts.
- The court concluded the unequal allocation was supported by equitable considerations recognized in A.R.S. § 25-318(A) and Toth, including the short duration of the marriage and the use of debt secured by Sugar Creek to improve property titled to Wife and her son.
- The court rejected Wife’s argument that the Sugar Creek transfer and funding of Queen Valley improvements required a more equal division as “gifts,” holding the family court was not required to accept that characterization.

## Legal Principles

- Under A.R.S. § 25-318(A), community and jointly held property must be divided equitably, not necessarily equally or in kind.
- A substantially unequal division of assets and debts is permissible when a sound equitable reason supports it; “equitable” is not synonymous with “mathematically equal.”
- Dissolution property and debt allocations are reviewed for abuse of discretion; an appellate court will not reweigh evidence and will uphold the decree if it falls within a reasonable range of outcomes.
- In assessing equity, a court may consider the practical effects of community borrowing and expenditures that primarily benefit one spouse’s separately titled property, especially in a short-term marriage.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a substantially unequal dissolution distribution because the family court reasonably applied Arizona’s equitable-division statute and Toth to allocate property and debt in light of the short marriage and the use of debt secured by Sugar Creek to fund improvements to the separately titled Queen Valley property.


Flower v. Flower, 223 Ariz. 531, 225 P.3d 588 (Ct. App. 2010)