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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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: CLAUDIA CASTILLO TORRES, Petitioner/Appellant, v. HECTOR CASTILLO MIRAMONTES, Respondent/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV 17-0472 FC FILED 6-19-2018 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. FN2016-003489 The Honorable William L. Brotherton Jr., Judge (Retired) AFFIRMED COUNSEL Bert L. Roos PC, Phoenix By Bert L. Roos Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant Kimerer & Derrick PC, Phoenix By Teri D. McCall Counsel for Respondent/Appellee TORRES v. MIRAMONTES Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Jennifer B. Campbell delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz and Judge James P. Beene joined. C A M P B E L L, Judge: ¶1 Claudia Castillo Torres (“Wife”) appeals the divorce decree in which the court awarded the Solano property to Hector Castillo Miramontes (“Husband”) as his sole and separate property and ordered that the 87th Avenue property be sold with net proceeds divided equally between the parties. For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 Husband and Wife married in 2007, and Wife filed for divorce in 2016. At trial, Husband presented a disclaimer deed signed by Wife, disclaiming her interest in the Solano property, which was purchased in 2009. Husband also testified he provided the entire down payment from $9,000 of his sole and separate property to purchase the Solano property. Wife presented conflicting testimony claiming that when the Solano property was purchased, they were living at Husband’s parents’ house and he had no “money from before.” While she claimed that Husband had no separate property savings upon which to obtain the down payment, she offered no alternative evidence about how the property was obtained or where the down payment came from.1 Wife confirmed that she signed the disclaimer deed but testified that she only signed it because she did not have “legal documents” alluding to her immigration status. ¶3 With respect to the 87th Avenue property, Wife testified there was an $8,000 outstanding debt on the property resulting from a loan made by Wife’s parents. Both parties agreed that the property was purchased during the marriage, and Husband affirmed that the property is community property. 1Wife acted pro se at trial. Although Wife is not a lawyer, she is held to the same standards as a lawyer licensed to practice law in Arizona. Copper State Bank v. Saggio, 139 Ariz. 438, 441 (App. 1983). Additionally, a court interpreter assisted wife at the trial. 2 TORRES v. MIRAMONTES Decision of the Court ¶4 After receiving all the evidence and testimony, the trial court found (1) the Solano property was Husband’s sole and separate property, and (2) the 87th Avenue property was community property which must be sold, with the net proceeds to be divided equally. DISCUSSION ¶5 We review the trial court’s allocation of property for an ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals