Prasek v. Prasek

── Prasek v. Prasek ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: April 15, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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: IZABELA PRASEK, Petitioner/Appellee, v. ROBERT PRASEK, Respondent/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV 25-0478 FC FILED 04-15-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. FN2021-090695 The Honorable Charlene D. Jackson, Judge VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RECONSIDERATION COUNSEL Becker Zarling & Smith Law, Avondale By Gina M. Becker-Zarling, Sara Smith Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee Zwillinger Wulkan PLC, Phoenix By Larry Wulkan, Peter S. Kozinets, Lauren Whittaker Co-Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee Reardon House Colton PLC, Scottsdale By Kristi A. Reardon Counsel for Respondent/Appellant  PRASEK v. PRASEK Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Michael S. Catlett and Judge Angela K. Paton joined. P E R K I N S, Judge: ¶1 Robert Prasek (“Husband”) appeals from the community property allocation in the decree dissolving his marriage to Izabela Prasek (“Wife”). We conclude the superior court erroneously allocated the community’s equitable lien. As explained below, we vacate the court’s community property allocation and remand for reconsideration. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 The parties married in 1993 and separated in 2006, with Wife living in Arizona and Husband living in Chicago, Illinois. Wife petitioned for dissolution in 2021. During the marriage, the parties bought a home in Goodyear, Arizona. ¶3 It is undisputed that (1) the Goodyear home is Wife’s separate property because Husband signed a disclaimer deed, and (2) the community is entitled to an equitable lien because the parties paid the down payment and mortgage with community funds. On appeal, Husband does not challenge the amount of the equitable lien stated in the decree, only the allocation of the equitable lien. ¶4 Husband owns and operates a construction business. Wife owns and operates a business that provides nutritional advice. The parties disputed the value of the businesses, but agreed they were both community property and the court should award each party their respective business. ¶5 Wife testified that during the dissolution proceedings, she discovered there were liens on the Goodyear house for a homeowners’ association (“HOA”) debt on a different property and “tax liens.” She estimated that the tax liens were $140,000. Husband asserted that the parties owed over $90,000 in unpaid taxes from 2014 to 2023. Husband asked the court to allocate the tax debts to him and award him his business with no offset to Wife. Wife argued that because all the liens were related to Husband’s business, the court should allocate those debts to him. But she agreed that if the court awarded her half of the value of Husband’s business, she would be responsible for half of the business-related debts. 2  PRASEK v. PRASEK Decision of the Court ¶6 Consistent with the pretrial stipulation, the superior court awarded each party its business, including all liabilities, subject to equalization. It valued Wife’s business at $2,000 and Husband’s at $190,000. The court found the Goodyear house was Wife’s separate property, and the community had an equit