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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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: ROSALVA CARDENAS-TERAN, Petitioner/Appellee, v. RUBEN VEGA-FERNANDEZ, Respondent/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV 22-0377 FC FILED 4-11-2023 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. FC2021-004262 The Honorable James N. Drake, Jr., Judge REVERSED AND REMANDED COUNSEL Bert L. Roos Attorney at Law, Phoenix By Bert L. Roos Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee Pittman Law Offices, PLLC, Mesa By Samuel Q. Pittman Counsel for Respondent/Appellant CARDENAS-TERAN v. VEGA-FERNANDEZ Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Maurice Portley 1 delivered the decision of the Court, in which Vice Chief Judge David B. Gass and Judge Brian Y. Furuya joined. P O R T L E Y, Judge: ¶1 The superior court found that mistake or fraud made a disclaimer deed ineffective to overcome the presumption that real property purchased during the parties’ marriage was community property. We hold that the court erred because not only were the defenses of mistake and fraud not properly alleged, but also they were not supported by sufficient evidence. We reverse the community-property award as to this real property only and remand for the superior court to designate that property as separate, determine the value of any community lien, and allocate the property accordingly. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Rosalva Cardenas-Teran (“Wife”) and Ruben Vega- Fernandez (“Husband”) married in 2009. The next year, Husband took out a secured loan and acquired title to a residence (“the Residence”) in his name. According to Husband, and confirmed by Wife in a contemporaneous disclaimer deed disavowing any interest in the Residence, Husband used his separate property for the $800 down payment and the closing costs. ¶3 Wife petitioned for dissolution in 2021. She asserted in her pretrial statement that the Residence was community property, but she did not allege in that statement or in her pleadings that the disclaimer deed was the product of mistake or fraud. She instead stated that the mortgage company had required that the Residence be titled in Husband’s name due to Wife’s undocumented immigration status and financial considerations. ¶4 At trial, Wife testified that she sought only the equity accumulated in the Residence during the marriage. She stated that she had 1 The Honorable Maurice Portley, Retired Judge of the Court of Appeals, Division One, has been authorized to sit in this matter pursuant to Article 6, Section 3, of the Arizona Constitution. 2 CARDENAS-TERAN v. VEGA-FERNANDEZ Decision of the Court signed “something for [Husband] so that they would be able to give him the [Residence]” and believed that if she did not sign, “then they were going to ask [for immigration] documentation from [her], and [she] didn’t want to get involved in that” because she “didn’t have documentation to be able to give them and [she] really liked the house.” She further commented that she “obviously . …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals