West v. West

── West v. West ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: May 07, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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: SCOTT WEST, Petitioner/Appellee, v. STACEY LEE WEST, Respondent/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV 25-0609 FC FILED 05-07-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. FN2024-050949 The Honorable Andrew J. Russell, Judge VACATED AND REMANDED COUNSEL Reardon House Colton PLC, Scottsdale By Sally M. Colton Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee The Law Office of Kristen Kaffer PLLC, Phoenix By Kristen E. Kaffer Counsel for Respondent/Appellant  WEST v. WEST 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 Stacey Lee West (Wife) appeals from a decree of dissolution that denied her request for spousal maintenance and rejected her claim that Scott West (Husband) wasted community funds. As discussed below, the decree is vacated and this matter is remanded for reconsideration of the Spousal Maintenance Guidelines, see Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 25- 319 app. (Guidelines)1 and to further consider Wife’s waste claim. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 The parties married in 1984. Wife has two adult sons from a prior relationship. The parties retired around 2018, when Husband was 59 and Wife was 56. They lived on savings. Both parties later received monthly Social Security benefits. Wife’s gross monthly Social Security benefit is $1,298, while Husband’s is $2,594. Wife now lives in the marital residence in Arizona with one of her adult sons. Husband is living with Wife’s other adult son in the son’s Washington home. ¶3 Husband petitioned for dissolution in May 2024. At trial, Wife claimed the parties had substantial savings (including a retirement account) when they retired, but it is now depleted because Husband made excessive and abnormal expenditures without her knowledge. Husband claimed that the parties simply lived beyond their means and depleted their savings after retiring early. ¶4 Both parties submitted spousal maintenance worksheets. Although Husband opposed any spousal maintenance award, his worksheet indicated a spousal maintenance range for the benefit of Wife of $514.22 to $726.98 a month, with a duration of 12 to 96 months. Attributing income to Husband in addition to his Social Security benefit, Wife’s 1 The Guidelines were amended effective September 1, 2025. See A.R.S. § 25- 319 app., Credits (2025). Because the petition was filed before that date, this decision refers to the September 1, 2025 Guidelines unless otherwise noted. 2  WEST v. WEST Decision of the Court worksheet showed a range for her benefit of $1,447.10 to $1,909.63, with a duration of 12 to 96 months. ¶5 The superior court found that Wife was eligible for an award of spousal maintenance under A.R.S. § 25-319(A). However, under A.R.S. § 25-319(B), it found Wife was not entitled to any spousal maintenance award. The court also concluded that Wife “presented no evidence” to show that Husband wasted community funds. This court has jurisdiction over Wife’s timely appeal under Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. sections 12-12