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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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 Marriage of: JIN DONG LI, Petitioner/Appellant, v. XIAO YUN ZHAO, Respondent/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV 22-0378 FC FILED 5-4-2023 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. FN2020-096616 The Honorable Lisa S. Wahlin, Judge AFFIRMED APPEARANCES Jin Dong Li, Scottsdale Petitioner/Appellant Colburn Hintze Maletta, PLLC, Phoenix By Henry Alzate, Darin R. Colburn, Timothy M. Hintze, David J. Maletta Counsel for Respondent/Appellee LI v. ZHAO Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Jennifer B. Campbell delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey and Judge David D. Weinzweig joined. C A M P B E L L, Judge: ¶1 Jin Dong Li (Husband) appeals the dissolution decree (Decree) ending his marriage to Xiao Yun Zhao (Wife). He argues the court erred by awarding spousal maintenance and in dividing certain property. For the reasons below, we affirm. BACKGROUND1 ¶2 Husband and Wife married in China, later immigrating to the United States. After 40 years of marriage, the parties separated in August 2020. Husband petitioned for dissolution of marriage without minor children in September, and Wife accepted service later that month. ¶3 Both parties testified at trial. Wife offered multiple exhibits into evidence concerning her health issues and the parties’ finances. Husband did not successfully introduce any documentary evidence. ¶4 The family court then entered the Decree awarding spousal maintenance to Wife, dividing property equally, and dissolving the parties’ marriage. Under the terms of the Decree, the marital home was to be listed for sale, and Husband was to reimburse Wife for half of the necessary household expenses (utilities, HOA fees and penalties, HOA-required repairs, and property taxes) she paid after the parties’ separation out of her half of the monies the parties divided upon separation. Wife filed a motion to clarify and correct the Decree, arguing the court “misunderst[oo]d the nature of the various accounts” and erred in their distribution. See Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. (Rule) 83. The court denied this motion, citing the parties’ failure to present clear evidence. Husband timely appealed. 1 We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the family court’s decision. Motel 6 Operating Ltd. P’ship v. City of Flagstaff, 195 Ariz. 569, 571, ¶ 7 (App. 1999) (citation omitted). 2 LI v. ZHAO Decision of the Court DISCUSSION ¶5 Husband raises seven issues on appeal, asking us to “correct” or “revoke” various portions of the Decree. We review for an abuse of discretion. See Helland v. Helland, 236 Ariz. 197, 202, ¶ 22 (App. 2014) (spousal maintenance); Bell-Kilbourn v. Bell-Kilbourn, 216 Ariz. 521, 523, ¶ 4 (App. 2007) (allocation of property). ¶6 To begin, we note that Husband failed to cite relevant legal authority or to present and develop arguments for any of his claims. Because Husband also failed …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals