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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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: RODERICK HOWARD BARNETT, Petitioner/Appellant, v. NGAN NGOC BARNETT, Respondent/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV 21-0714 FC FILED 8-18-2022 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. FC2019-002329 The Honorable Monica Edelstein, Judge DECREE AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED COUNSEL Jaburg & Wilk, Phoenix By Mervyn T. Braude Co-Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant R D Smith Law, P.C., Scottsdale By Roger D. Smith Co-Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant Ngan Ngoc Barnett, Chandler Respondent/Appellee BARNETT v. BARNETT Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Cynthia J. Bailey delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Vice Chief Judge David B. Gass joined. B A I L E Y, Judge: ¶1 Roderick Howard Barnett (“Husband”) appeals the superior court’s decree of dissolution and order denying Husband’s motion to alter or amend the decree, arguing the court erred in awarding spousal maintenance and an equalization payment to Ngan Ngoc Barnett (“Wife”). Although we affirm the dissolution, we vacate the award of spousal maintenance, the award of the parties’ business to Husband, and the equalization payment to Wife, and we remand for determinations consistent with this decision. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Husband and Wife were married in March 2012. The parties signed a premarital agreement, which waived any award of spousal maintenance to either party. In March 2019, Husband filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage, seeking to enforce the premarital agreement. ¶3 During the marriage, the couple co-owned and operated an Asian fusion restaurant. Husband managed and had sole access to the accounts, except during parts of January and February 2021, when Wife obtained an order of protection and briefly had sole control of the business. Shortly after that period, Wife agreed to allow Husband to manage the restaurant, while she received a $3,000 monthly salary pending dissolution. Before the dissolution trial, the parties asked the court to order the business be sold and the profits split, with disagreement only on the allocation of the profits between them. Husband represented he had an offer to purchase the business for $150,000. ¶4 At trial, the parties disputed whether the business was profitable. Husband testified the business was not profitable and he had invested his separate funds into the business to keep it afloat between 2014 and 2021. In contrast, Wife testified that, in the preceding few years, the restaurant had average monthly sales of $85,000 and annual net profits of 2 BARNETT v. BARNETT Decision of the Court $120,000 to $150,000. She referenced ”self-prepared profit and loss statements” from around the time she managed the restaurant alone and submitted into evidence a handful of cash register receipts from late 2020 and early 2021. Neither party submitted any exhibits fully showing the business’s profits and losses for any year. ¶5 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals