Wood v. Drapkin

── Wood v. Drapkin ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: May 11, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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: CHRISTOPHER WOOD, Petitioner/Appellee, v. JODY DRAPKIN, Respondent/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV 24-0883 FC FILED 05-11-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. FC2022-090833 The Honorable Keith A. Miller, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Christopher Wood, Phoenix Petitioner/Appellee Pro Se Jody Drapkin, Whistler, British Columbia, Canada Respondent/Appellant Pro Se  WOOD v. DRAPKIN Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Anni Hill Foster delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge James B. Morse Jr. and Judge Veronika Fabian joined. F O S T E R, Judge: ¶1 Respondent Jody Drapkin (“Wife”) appeals the superior court’s final decree of dissolution for her marriage to Christopher Wood (“Husband”). Wife argues the court improperly sanctioned her, denied her accommodation requests, failed to consider all evidence, awarded Husband their community property and that she suffered from misconduct by her counsel, opposing counsel and the judge. Wife asserts each of these issues constitute an abuse of discretion. This Court affirms. FACTS1 AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Married in 2003, Husband and Wife lived with their daughter 2 in Arizona during the marriage. Husband worked for Sunny Energy, LLC (“Sunny Energy”) as Director of Business Development. Wife did not work much during the marriage. The couple held a 25% ownership interest in Sunny Energy. In February 2022, Husband petitioned the superior court of Maricopa County for a dissolution of marriage. In May, Wife moved to British Columbia and has been living there since. ¶3 Throughout the dissolution proceedings, Wife repeatedly sent harassing messages to Husband, opposing counsel, unrelated third parties, the court and court staff. Wife’s emails discussed Husband’s obligation to disclose his hidden financial accounts, her requested Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) accommodations, permanent spousal maintenance, division of community property and alleged attorney and judicial misconduct. 1 This Court views the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the superior court’s ruling. See Lehn v. Al-Thanayyan, 246 Ariz. 277, 283, ¶ 14 (App. 2019). 2 Daughter was a minor during these proceedings but has since reached the age of majority. 2  WOOD v. DRAPKIN Decision of the Court ¶4 The emails coupled with Wife’s behavior during litigation led the court to issue several admonishments and sanctions. The court initially admonished Wife to stop harassing Husband, numerous third parties and the court. The court ordered both parties not to send ex parte email communications to court staff and warned that violation of its order would result in a fine of $150.00 per violation. Several months later, after Wife’s attorney withdrew, the court issued a second order directly to Wife ordering her to immediately stop ex parte communications with court staff or it would impose the fine. Despite these warnings, and only a few days after the order, Wife sent twenty separate emails and numerous phone calls to court staff. As a result, the court fined Wife for the violations. The court also ordered the parties, again, not to h