Nelson v. Nelson

── Nelson v. Nelson ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: May 04, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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 JENIFER AYCOCK NELSON, Petitioner/Appellee, v. STEVEN RICHARD NELSON, Respondent/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV 25-0045 FC FILED 05-04-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. FN2021-050782 The Honorable James Knapp, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Scottsdale Family Law PLLC, Scottsdale By Robyn Barrett Co-Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee Reardon House Colton PLC, Scottsdale By Taylor S. House, Sally M. Colton Co-Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee Adam C. Rieth PLLC, Mesa By Adam C. Rieth Counsel for Respondent/Appellant  NELSON v. NELSON Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Michael S. Catlett delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge D. Steven Williams joined. Judge Andrew M. Jacobs concurred in part and dissented in part. C A T L E T T, Judge: ¶1 Steven Richard Nelson (“Husband”) appeals the superior court’s Domestic Relations Order (“DRO”) allocating community pension benefits. We conclude we have jurisdiction over Husband’s appeal, and we affirm the DRO because the court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Husband’s proposed remedies after Jennifer Aycock Nelson (“Wife”) violated the court’s decree of dissolution. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Wife petitioned to dissolve her marriage to Husband. In January 2023, the superior court issued a decree (“Decree”) doing so. ¶3 In dividing the parties’ assets, the court found Husband owned an individual retirement account (“IRA”) and Wife owned a pension through the Arizona State Retirement System (“ASRS Pension”), designated both community property, and awarded half to each party. The court ordered the parties to select a “qualified person” to prepare any “necessary qualified domestic relations orders” by February 6, 2023. The court ordered the individual selected as a special master to “make recommendations to the Court as to whether [Husband] should be awarded a survivor benefit.” The court also instructed the special master to “identify the cost for the election of a survivor benefit and, if appropriate, [to] allocate the cost thereto.” The Decree required both parties to “cooperate” by “diligently provid[ing] all plan statements necessary[.]” ¶4 In May 2024, Husband and Wife chose a special master. When an individual participating in ASRS retires, that individual may select either a life annuity or a survivor annuity. Husband wanted Wife to select the survivor annuity, but Wife disagreed. Husband argued Wife earned the entire value of the ASRS Pension during their marriage, the ASRS Pension made up the bulk of the community’s retirement assets, and Wife was likely to predecease him due to health issues. Wife opposed 2  NELSON v. NELSON Decision of the Court selecting a survivor benefit because that option would reduce her monthly benefit and prohibit her from leaving a survivor benefit to a potential future husband. ¶5 Initially, the special master favored Husband’s argument. But before completing her report, the special master discovered that Wife had retired a year earlier (in May 2023) and selected the life annuity option without a survivor benefit. The special master explained that before discovering Wife had re