Frandsen v. Frandsen

── Frandsen v. Frandsen ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: April 13, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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: MARK E. FRANDSEN, Petitioner/Appellee, v. VERONICA FRANDSEN, Respondent/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV 25-0577 FC FILED 04-13-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Yuma County No. S1400DO202400790 The Honorable Nathaniel T. Sorenson, Judge AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED COUNSEL Veronica Perea Frandsen, Somerton Respondent/Appellant The Law Offices of Amanda Taylor, PLLC, Yuma By Amanda Taylor Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee  FRANDSEN v. FRANDSEN Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Andrew J. Becke and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined. T H U M M A, Judge: ¶1 Veronica Perea Frandsen (Mother) appeals from a decree of dissolution ending her marriage to Mark Evan Frandsen (Father). Mother argues the decree erred in awarding Father the marital house and a business, failed to hold Father accountable for allowing a Jeep to be repossessed, and erred in awarding spousal maintenance. Mother has shown no error in the award of the house. However, the decree was deficient in awarding Father the business and did not discuss the Jeep repossession. Accordingly, the portion of the decree awarding Father the business is vacated and the matter is remanded for further consideration of the business as well as the Jeep repossession. Recognizing remand on those issues also could alter the spousal maintenance award, it also is vacated and remanded. The decree is otherwise affirmed. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Mother and Father married in August 2010 and have one minor son. In August 2024, Father filed and served Mother with a dissolution petition. The petition alleged the couple did not acquire any community property during the marriage. The petition listed the marital house as separate property, which Father claimed he brought to the marriage. The petition alleged that Mother should be responsible for $35,000 in debt incurred during the marriage for a Jeep. Father sought sole legal decision-making, alleging Mother had committed domestic violence against Father during the marriage. ¶3 Mother’s September 2024 response countered that community property had been acquired during the marriage and should be divided equitably. Mother asserted that the community incurred significant debt and that Father wasted and concealed community assets. Mother requested sole legal decision-making, denying she committed domestic violence and asserting that Father had committed domestic violence against her. 2  FRANDSEN v. FRANDSEN Decision of the Court ¶4 Father filed an amended petition, alleging an April 2024 domestic violence incident where Mother hit him. Father also alleged he had obtained an order of protection against Mother. Father asserted no spousal maintenance was appropriate and that Mother wasted, and may have concealed, community assets. Mother’s response to the amended petition largely tracked her response to the original petition. ¶5 In November 2024, the court set a May 1, 2025 trial. After evidentiary hearings in December 2024, the court issued temporary orders awarding equal parenting time but awarding Father sole legal decision- making, orderi