Engelby v. Engelby

── Engelby v. Engelby ── 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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 Marriage of: ELLIOTT ENGELBY, Petitioner/Appellee, v. BEATRICE ENGELBY, Respondent/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV 25-0906 FC FILED 05-18-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Coconino County No. S0300DO202500145 The Honorable Neil Elliot Sherman, Judge VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED COUNSEL Elliott Engelby, Ashfork Petitioner/Appellee DNA People’s Legal Services, Inc., Flagstaff By A.J. Rogers Counsel for Respondent/Appellant  ENGELBY v. ENGELBY 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 Beatrice Engelby (“Wife”) appeals the superior court’s decree dissolving her marriage to Elliott Engelby (“Husband”). For the following reasons, we vacate in part and remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Husband and Wife married in April 1998. Husband filed for divorce in April 2025. In his pro se petition for dissolution of marriage, Husband listed only one community property asset: a mobile home on 2.3 acres of land (the “Property”). He claimed the Property was worth $17,999.00 and asked the superior court to award him the Property. In return, he sought to pay Wife one quarter of the Property’s value, $4,500.00, in monthly increments of $200.00. ¶3 Wife filed her pro se response, in which she listed Husband’s three operable trucks, and other inoperable vehicles, as community property. She did not dispute the value of the Property, but described it as being 4.5 acres instead of 2.3 acres. ¶4 Husband submitted a filing in which he summarized his reasons for ending the marriage, including that wife was unfaithful, physically abusive, and excessively consumed alcohol. Husband stated Wife “does not deserve” more than one quarter of the value of the couple’s community property “due to the damage, strife, and upheaval she has caused over the years.” ¶5 Wife participated in pretrial matters leading up to trial. She submitted a Disclosure Statement, an Affidavit of Financial Information, and a Proposed Resolution Statement. She also attended resolution management and pretrial conferences, where the trial date and time were set and affirmed. But Wife did not appear for the trial scheduled to start at 1:30 p.m. on September 15, 2025. The court asked Husband if he saw Wife 2  ENGELBY v. ENGELBY Decision of the Court in the hallway. Husband replied no, and the court proceeded to trial, where it questioned Husband under oath. ¶6 Husband testified that the vehicles Wife listed as community property belonged to his son. He said the Property was their only community asset. Husband again asked the court to award him the Property subject to an equalization payment of $4,500.00. ¶7 The superior court then said it was “very likely going to award all of these things to [Husband]” explaining: “I’m going to treat this matter essentially as a default proceeding, okay. And what that means is that I’m going to find that [Wife] had notice of today’s proceedings, that she failed to appear.” The court contin