Matthews v. Matthews

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ANDRE MATTHEWS, Petitioner/Appellant,

v.

CHERYL MATTHEWS, Respondent/Appellee.

No. 1 CA-CV 25-0594 FC
FILED 05-13-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. FN2024-070147
The Honorable David W. Garbarino, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Andre Matthews, Surprise
Petitioner/Appellant

The Law Office of Scott Griffiths PLLC, Tempe
By Marty Zalevsky, Scott Griffiths
Counsel for Respondent/Appellee
MATTHEWS v. MATTHEWS
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Michael S. Catlett delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Angela K. Paton and Judge Jennifer M. Perkins joined.

C A T L E T T, Judge:

¶1 Andre Matthews (“Husband”) appeals the superior court’s
Decree of Dissolution (“Decree”), which awarded Cheryl Matthews
(“Wife”) half a community lien on separate property and characterized a
credit card balance and a bonus Wife owed to a former employer as
community debts. Because Husband does not demonstrate that the court
erred by finding he did not rebut the presumption of community property
and debts, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Husband and Wife wed in 2019. On February 16, 2024,
Husband petitioned to dissolve the marriage; Wife accepted service on
February 22, 2024. During the proceedings, Husband identified certain
residential property he claimed he purchased before the marriage. Wife did
not dispute that the residential property was separate. But she requested
that the court impose a community lien on the property. She also requested
that Husband pay around $3,500 of a $6,002 credit card balance. And she
requested that Husband pay half of a $20,000 signing bonus a prior
employer required her to return after terminating her employment.

¶3 The court held a trial. It admitted Husband’s exhibits, which
were purportedly images showing the interior of his separate residence.
The court also admitted Husband’s exhibit titled, “Notice of Issues,” in
which Husband argued Wife “did not reside at the residence” for
“approximately 18 months” during the marriage, and so Husband was
“[t]he only contributor to the residence[.]” Husband accused Wife of
“damag[ing]” the residence by engaging in “non-professional do it yourself
projects.” Husband also provided multiple estimates to “redo[]” Wife’s
projects. And he accused Wife of spending over $5,000 in February 2024 on
“non-essential” items, including shoes, gift cards, and multiple virtual
reality headsets.

2
MATTHEWS v. MATTHEWS
Decision of the Court

¶4 The court also admitted Wife’s exhibits. Wife provided
evidence showing the value of Husband’s residential property in 2019 and
2025, as well as evidence about mortgage payments on that property. She
submitted an email from February 1, 2024, wherein her previous employer
requested that she return a $20,000 signing bonus because she was no
longer employed with the company. Wife included a collections letter
stemming from that debt. And Wife submitted a credit card invoice for
February 2024, showing a balance of $6,002.97. That invoice reflected
multiple charges on February 15 and 16, 2024, totaling over $5,000, but it
did not describe what items were purchased or for whom.

¶5 The court issued the Decree, designating the residential
property as Husband’s separate property but finding Wife was entitled to
half of a community lien. The court used Wife’s valuation and calculated
her interest in the community lien at $18,796.51. The court rejected
Husband’s reimbursement request for Wife’s improvements because he
“did not present sufficient credible evidence” distinguishing purported
damage from normal “wear and tear[.]” The court found the credit card
balance and the bonus repayment were community debts and apportioned
them equally between Husband and Wife.

¶6 Husband timely appealed; we have jurisdiction. See A.R.S.
§ 12-2101(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶7 Husband argues the court erred by awarding the community
a lien on his property and designating the credit card and bonus
repayments community debts. We review the superior court’s property
division for an abuse of discretion, but we review de novo whether the
court properly characterized property and debts as community or separate.
Bell-Kilbourn v. Bell-Kilbourn, 216 Ariz. 521, 523 ¶ 4 (App. 2007). The court
commits an abuse of discretion when it “rules without competent evidence
or commits a legal error in making a discretionary decision.” Meister v.
Meister, 252 Ariz. 391, 396 ¶ 12 (App. 2021). A spouse must provide clear
and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption that property acquired
during marriage is community property. Cockrill v. Cockrill, 124 Ariz. 50, 52
(1979). We review the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the
court’s findings and affirm those findings if reasonable evidence supports
them. See Kohler v. Kohler, 211 Ariz. 106, 107 ¶ 2 (App. 2005).

¶8 Husband did not provide us with a trial transcript. Ariz. R.
Civ. App. P. 11(c). We “hold unrepresented litigants in Arizona to the same

3
MATTHEWS v. MATTHEWS
Decision of the Court

standards as attorneys and do not afford them special leniency.” Ramos v.
Nichols, 252 Ariz. 519, 522 ¶ 8 (App. 2022). Without a transcript, we
presume the trial testimony supported the superior court’s decision. Kohler,
211 Ariz. at 108 ¶ 8 n.1.

I. Community Lien

¶9 Husband argues the court erred by awarding Wife a
community lien on his separate residential property because she “did not
contribute directly to the home payments, maintenance and or [upkeep] of
the residence[.]” Husband contends Wife did not live at the property for
some time and for several years her “contributions” went only “towards
[her] own bills.” But any payment to the mortgage by the community
during marriage is credited to the community. See Saba v. Khoury, 253 Ariz.
587, 591 ¶¶ 12–13 (2022) (listing a standard community interest formula
that includes a calculation “when the community makes some of the
mortgage payments on a spouse’s separate property”) (emphasis added).
The court used the proper formula when calculating the community’s lien
against the property.

¶10 Husband also argues Wife undertook renovations on the
property that decreased its value, and it therefore should have denied the
community any interest. The court rejected that argument because
Husband “did not present sufficient credible evidence” to distinguish
between purported damage from renovations and normal “wear and
tear[.]” The only record evidence Husband presented at trial were pictures
allegedly showing the interior of a residence and estimates to remodel the
property. Husband admits the court ordered him to cooperate with Wife
in scheduling an appraisal, and he asserts that if an appraisal had occurred,
the court would have had proof that Wife’s renovations devalued the
property. But the record reflects Wife suggested the appraisal, and
Husband did not show that he worked with Wife to schedule the appraisal
he contends would have supported his argument. Ultimately, Husband
asks us to reweigh the evidence about how Wife’s renovations allegedly
impacted the property’s value. We will not do so. See Lehn v. Al-Thanayyan,
246 Ariz. 277, 284 ¶ 20 (App. 2019).

II. Community Debt

¶11 Husband also claims the court erred by attributing certain
debts to the community. Specifically, Husband argues he should not be
responsible for certain credit card debt because Wife purchased gifts for her
boyfriend. He also argues the court erred by designating Wife’s obligation

4
MATTHEWS v. MATTHEWS
Decision of the Court

to repay her hiring bonus a community debt. A debt “incurred during
marriage [is] presumed to be [a] community debt[],” and the party arguing
otherwise must overcome that presumption. Lorenz-Auxier Fin. Grp., Inc. v.
Bidewell, 160 Ariz. 218, 220 (App. 1989).

¶12 The record reflects, and Husband admits, that the disputed
credit card charges occurred on February 15 and 16, 2024, during the
marriage. Husband did not petition for dissolution until February 16, and
Wife did not accept service until February 22, so Husband and Wife were
married when Wife made the purchases at issue. Husband therefore had
to overcome the presumption that the community incurred those debts.
Husband’s assertions that Wife “admitted in court to having a boyfriend”
do not overcome that presumption, particularly when he has not provided
us with a transcript reflecting that or any other testimony.

¶13 The same goes for Husband’s argument about Wife’s
obligation to repay the bonus from her employer. Wife provided evidence
that she received the signing bonus on July 21, 2023, and on February 1,
2024, the company demanded repayment. That demand occurred during
the marriage, so we presume the bonus was community property and the
obligation to repay it was a community debt. Husband’s argument that
Wife spent the bonus on herself does not overcome that presumption. The
court did not err by characterizing the credit card and bonus debt as
community debts.

ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS

¶14 Wife requests attorney fees and costs “incurred in the
litigation and on appeal” under A.R.S. § 25-324 and Arizona Rule of Civil
Appellate Procedure 21. After considering the relative financial resources
of the parties and the reasonableness of their positions taken on appeal, we
award Wife her reasonable attorney fees and costs on appeal, upon
complying with Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 21.

5
MATTHEWS v. MATTHEWS
Decision of the Court

CONCLUSION

¶15 We affirm the Decree.

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

6