Merrill v. Enos

── Merrill v. Enos ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: April 30, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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 BOBBI L. MERRILL, Petitioner/Appellant, v. CLIFFORD J. ENOS, Respondent/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV 25-0726 FC FILED 04-30-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County No. S1300DO202300006 The Honorable Tina R. Ainley, Judge VACATED IN PART COUNSEL Berkshire Law Office PLLC, Tempe By Keith Berkshire, Alexandra Sandlin, Elizabeth Nañez, Alicia Derr Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant  MERRILL v. ENOS 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 Bobbi Merrill (“Wife”) appeals the superior court’s order requiring her to sell residential property and pay Clifford Enos (“Husband”) $60,000 from the proceeds, when the court’s original dissolution decree ordered her to refinance the property and pay Husband $20,000. Husband did not file an answering brief. Because Wife raises a debatable issue on appeal, we treat Husband’s failure to file an answering brief as a confession of error and vacate the order in part. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 In January 2023, Wife petitioned to dissolve her and Husband’s marriage. Two months later, the court entered a Decree of Dissolution (“Decree”). The Decree ordered Wife to refinance the mortgage on residential property obtained during the marriage and pay Husband $20,000 from the equity “within 6 months of judgment[.]” ¶3 Five months after the Decree, Wife sought to amend the Decree to give her six more months to refinance the mortgage because of “ongoing extremely high interest rates[.]” Wife attested that she was “currently unable to qualify for the refinancing” and requested additional time to allow interest rates to decrease to “between 6% and 7%[.]” Husband did not respond. The court denied Wife’s motion without prejudice for not providing Husband with proper notice and for failing to follow the Arizona Rules of Family Law Procedure. Wife did not renew her request. ¶4 In June 2025, Husband petitioned to enforce the Decree. He argued Wife did not refinance the property by the deadline in the Decree. He asked the court to order Wife to sell the property and equally divide the equity between them. ¶5 The court held a hearing. When asked, Husband agreed with the court that over two years had passed since the Decree, but Wife had not refinanced the property. Husband explained that delay prevented him from using veteran benefits to apply for his own mortgage. 2  MERRILL v. ENOS Decision of the Court ¶6 Wife apologized for the delay, explaining she “made every effort to try to refinance” but had not “been successful . . . because of the high interest rate” and the burden of the $20,000 payment. Wife said she was “ready to sell” but argued that requiring her to split the equity from the sale would be unfair because she gave her “best effort” to refinance and Husband never appeared during divorce proceedings. ¶7 The court denied Husband’s request to evenly split the sale proceeds because Wife was the only one who contributed to the mortgage post-Decree. Instead, the court ordered Wife to sell the property withi