Rhoades v. Rhoades

── Rhoades v. Rhoades ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: April 29, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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 Marriage of: MANDY RHOADES, Petitioner/Appellant, v. LOUIS CLYDE RHOADES, Respondent/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV 25-0641 FC FILED 04-29-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. FN2024-050420 The Honorable Julie Ann Mata, Judge VACATED IN PART COUNSEL Law Office of Katherine Kraus PLLC, Peoria By Katherine Kraus, Kimberly A. Staley, Elizabeth S. Langford, and Shannon M. Lewis Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant Udall Shumway PLC, Mesa By Sheri D. Shepard Counsel for Respondent/Appellee  RHOADES v. RHOADES Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Andrew M. Jacobs delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Brian Y. Furuya and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined. J A C O B S, Judge: ¶1 Mandy Rhoades (“Wife”) appeals a superior court order granting Louis Rhoades’ (“Husband”) Motion to Alter or Amend Decree of Dissolution, the minute entry memorializing that ruling, and a minute entry denying Wife’s Motion for Reconsideration of it. In those post-decree rulings, the court modified the property division by replacing Wife’s award of 50% of the equity in the marital residence with a fixed payment of $57,000. Because that modification was based on an issue first raised in reply and is unsupported by the record, we vacate that portion of the order. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY A. Wife Petitions for Dissolution and the Court Holds a Hearing. ¶2 Husband and Wife married in April 2011. Wife petitioned for dissolution in March 2024. In her petition, Wife requested that Husband refinance the marital residence and pay her $57,000 as her share of the equity. ¶3 The superior court held a hearing on April 1, 2025. At the outset, the parties entered a Rule 69 agreement resolving several issues, including spousal maintenance, division of retirement accounts, vehicles, and personal property. The court approved the agreement as knowing, voluntary, and binding as to both parties. The remaining issues included the “disposition of the residence; equalization of the 2023 tax returns; the gold, silver & copper; division of the liquid assets; affirmation of sole and separate property; reimbursement claims; division of debts; and attorney’s fees.” B. The Parties Present Competing Positions on Equity in the Marital Residence. ¶4 At the hearing, Wife acknowledged that her petition requested $57,000 for her interest in the marital residence but testified that amount was not equitable and that she instead sought 50 percent of the 2  RHOADES v. RHOADES Decision of the Court equity, which she believed would be “an equitable division of property in this case.” She also testified regarding her financial contributions towards the equity in the property. ¶5 On cross-examination, Wife confirmed that Husband had made the mortgage payments since service of the petition and that she had not reimbursed him for half of those payments. ¶6 Husband, in contrast, testified that Wife should receive $57,000 as her share of the equity, stating that her position had been $57,000. He also acknowledged that no appraisal had been performed