Matthews v. Matthews

── Matthews v. Matthews ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: May 13, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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: ANDRE MATTHEWS, Petitioner/Appellant, v. CHERYL MATTHEWS, Respondent/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV 25-0594 FC FILED 05-13-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. FN2024-070147 The Honorable David W. Garbarino, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Andre Matthews, Surprise Petitioner/Appellant The Law Office of Scott Griffiths PLLC, Tempe By Marty Zalevsky, Scott Griffiths Counsel for Respondent/Appellee  MATTHEWS v. MATTHEWS 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 Andre Matthews (“Husband”) appeals the superior court’s Decree of Dissolution (“Decree”), which awarded Cheryl Matthews (“Wife”) half a community lien on separate property and characterized a credit card balance and a bonus Wife owed to a former employer as community debts. Because Husband does not demonstrate that the court erred by finding he did not rebut the presumption of community property and debts, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Husband and Wife wed in 2019. On February 16, 2024, Husband petitioned to dissolve the marriage; Wife accepted service on February 22, 2024. During the proceedings, Husband identified certain residential property he claimed he purchased before the marriage. Wife did not dispute that the residential property was separate. But she requested that the court impose a community lien on the property. She also requested that Husband pay around $3,500 of a $6,002 credit card balance. And she requested that Husband pay half of a $20,000 signing bonus a prior employer required her to return after terminating her employment. ¶3 The court held a trial. It admitted Husband’s exhibits, which were purportedly images showing the interior of his separate residence. The court also admitted Husband’s exhibit titled, “Notice of Issues,” in which Husband argued Wife “did not reside at the residence” for “approximately 18 months” during the marriage, and so Husband was “[t]he only contributor to the residence[.]” Husband accused Wife of “damag[ing]” the residence by engaging in “non-professional do it yourself projects.” Husband also provided multiple estimates to “redo[]” Wife’s projects. And he accused Wife of spending over $5,000 in February 2024 on “non-essential” items, including shoes, gift cards, and multiple virtual reality headsets. 2  MATTHEWS v. MATTHEWS Decision of the Court ¶4 The court also admitted Wife’s exhibits. Wife provided evidence showing the value of Husband’s residential property in 2019 and 2025, as well as evidence about mortgage payments on that property. She submitted an email from February 1, 2024, wherein her previous employer requested that she return a $20,000 signing bonus because she was no longer employed with the company. Wife included a collections letter stemming from that debt. And Wife submitted a credit card invoice for February 2024, showing a balance of $6,002.97. That invoice reflected multiple charges on February 15 and 16, 2024, totaling over $5,000, but it did not describe what items were purchased or for