Prior v. Prior

── Prior v. Prior ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: May 18, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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: KATHARINE MARIE PRIOR, Petitioner/Appellant, v. KELLY MAY PRIOR, Respondent/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV 25-0832 FC FILED 05-18-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. FN2024-004475 The Honorable John R. Hannah, Judge Retired AFFIRMED COUNSEL Katharine Marie Prior, Glendale, AZ Petitioner/Appellant Kelly May Prior, Sherman Oaks, CA Respondent/Appellee  PRIOR v. PRIOR Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Angela K. Paton delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Michael S. Catlett and Judge Jennifer M. Perkins joined. P A T O N, Judge: ¶1 Katharine Prior appeals the portion of the superior court’s dissolution decree awarding Kelly Prior spousal maintenance. For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Katharine and Kelly were married in 2018 and have no children in common. In 2024, Katharine petitioned for dissolution of marriage, requesting neither party be awarded spousal maintenance. Kelly responded, requesting $3,000 per month in spousal maintenance for 36 months, indicating she lacked sufficient property to provide for her reasonable needs, lacked sufficient earning ability to be self-sufficient, and made significant contributions to Katharine’s “education, training, vocational skills, career, or earning ability” that “significantly reduced” Kelly’s own income or career opportunities. Kelly later alleged she was unemployed due to serious medical conditions. Kelly subsequently requested $2,000 per month in spousal maintenance for 48 months in her separate pretrial statement, subject to review if she completed her education earlier or earned sufficient income. ¶3 In Katharine’s affidavit of financial information (“AFI”), she indicated she earned roughly $30,000 per year from 2021 to 2023 and that her current gross income was $3,601.80 per month. Kelly indicated in her AFI that she earned roughly $35,000 per year in 2022 and 2023, but was terminated from her position while caring for Katharine and experiencing health issues. As a result, her annual income in 2024 was reduced to $17,650. ¶4 The parties entered a partial settlement agreement pursuant to Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure 69, but the agreement did not resolve the spousal maintenance issue, so the court set trial for September 2025. By the time of trial, Katharine’s gross monthly income was $4,288. The court attributed $4,716.83 as her monthly income after adding 10% of 2  PRIOR v. PRIOR Decision of the Court the amount of Veteran’s Association (“VA”) disability benefits she receives. The court attributed $2,750 in monthly income to Kelly based on California’s minimum wage. Using these numbers in the spousal maintenance worksheet, the court found the appropriate monthly spousal maintenance award ranged from $491.79 to $659.54 for a duration of 6 to 48 months. ¶5 In its dissolution decree, the court awarded Kelly $500 per month for 33 months in spousal maintenance, after considering the guidelines’ recommended range, Katharine’s income from VA disability benefits, and Kelly’s realistic ability to work while attending full -time school. ¶6