Flores v. Flores

── Flores v. Flores ── Case No.: 1 CA-CV 25-0337 FC Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: March 23, 2026 Category: General 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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: JOSE ALFREDO FLORES, Petitioner/Appellant, v. ALEJANDRA FLORES, Respondent/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV 25-0337 FC FILED 03-23-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. FC2023-005112 The Honorable Melissa Zabor, Judge AFFIRMED IN PART; APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART COUNSEL Chaidez Law Firm, PLLC, Phoenix By Jose L. Chaidez Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant Becker Zarline & Smith Law, Avondale By Gina M. Becker-Zarling, Sara J. Smith Counsel for Respondent/Appellee  FLORES V. FLORES Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Daniel J. Kiley delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge D. Steven Williams and Judge Cynthia J. Bailey joined. K I L E Y, Judge: ¶1 Jose Alfredo Flores (“Husband”) appeals from certain provisions of the decree (the “Decree”) that dissolved his marriage to Alejandra Flores (“Wife”). We dismiss, for lack of appellate jurisdiction, his appeal from the superior court’s determination of Wife’s entitlement to an award of attorney fees, and otherwise affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Husband and Wife married in 1997. They have two children together. Husband petitioned to dissolve the marriage in 2023. The parties’ older child reached majority after Husband filed the petition. ¶3 At a hearing in September 2024, the parties informed the superior court that they had reached an agreement on certain issues and recited its terms in open court. The court approved and adopted the parties’ agreement, finding that it was a valid and binding agreement under Arizona Rules of Family Law Procedure (“Rule”) 69. ¶4 Shortly thereafter, Husband and Wife each lodged separate proposed orders purporting to reflect the terms of the parties’ Rule 69 agreement. The parties’ competing submissions were consistent in some respects. They both reflected, for example, that the parties would share joint legal decision-making authority for the child who was still a minor, that Husband would pay Wife monthly child support of $750, and that he would pay her monthly spousal maintenance of $1,700 until he turned 67. And each party’s submission provided for the disposition of the parties’ real property. ¶5 The competing submissions differed, however, in other respects. Among other things, Wife’s submission, unlike Husband’s, provided that Husband’s spousal maintenance obligation was non- modifiable. 2  FLORES V. FLORES Decision of the Court ¶6 Husband objected to Wife’s submission, asserting that it did not accurately reflect the parties’ Rule 69 agreement. The superior court reviewed the audio recording of the September 2024 hearing, determined that Wife’s submission “accurately summarized what the parties had agreed to,” and signed and entered Wife’s submission as an order. ¶7 Meanwhile, Husband subpoenaed Wife’s bank records and discovered two accounts with Landings Credit Union containing a total of approximately $60,000 which, he asserted, Wife had not disclosed in response to his discovery requests. One account listed Wife and the parties’ older child as “joint owners”; the other listed Wife and the parties’ younger child as “joint owners