Mohr v. Mohr

── Mohr v. Mohr ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: May 26, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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: SHANON MOHR, Petitioner/Appellee, v. TODD MOHR, Respondent/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV 25-0601 FC FILED 05-26-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. FN2022-004254 The Honorable Harla M. Davison, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED COUNSEL Spencer Fane LLP, Phoenix By Norma C. Izzo and Alexandra H. LeClair Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee Reardon House Colton PLC, Scottsdale By Kristi A. Reardon, Taylor S. House, and Sally M. Colton Counsel for Respondent/Appellant  MOHR v. MOHR Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Veronika Fabian delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown and Chief Judge Randall M. Howe joined. F A B I A N, Judge: ¶1 Todd Mohr (“Husband”) challenges portions of a dissolution decree ordering him to pay Shanon Mohr (“Wife”) for marital waste and equity in the marital home. This Court affirms. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 The parties were married in 1993 and have four adult children together. During the marriage, Husband was employed as a deputy sheriff. In December 2020, the parties separated and unsuccessfully attempted to file separation paperwork through an online service. Then, in September 2022, Wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage, seeking equitable division of community property, a greater share of community assets based on marital waste, and spousal maintenance under A.R.S. § 25-319. Husband contested Wife’s claims for marital waste and spousal maintenance. ¶3 At trial in January 2025, the parties stipulated that the community terminated as of December 24, 2020 (“the community termination date”). After trial, the superior court entered a decree of dissolution (“the Decree”). This Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the superior court’s findings. See Mitchell v. Mitchell, 152 Ariz. 317, 323 (1987). Marital Waste ¶4 In 2005, Husband was suspended from his employment due to allegations that he stopped a female motorist and then accompanied her to a hotel. During his suspension, Husband worked other jobs. Nevertheless, the parties struggled financially and eventually lost their home in a short sale. In 2009, Husband was reinstated because the motorist stopped cooperating in Husband’s ongoing disciplinary proceedings after she received a settlement. Husband’s suspension was reduced to ten days and Husband was informed he could recover $204,378.80 in backpay by filing a declaration of outside earnings form. 2  MOHR v. MOHR Decision of the Court ¶5 Nearly two years later, in January 2011, Husband’s employer sent Husband a final written request stating: Pursuant to the Stipulated Agreement dated March 30, 2009, we have made several requests for you to complete and forward the Declaration of Earnings form. To this date, you have not complied or have elected not to proceed with submission of the Declaration of Earnings paperwork. Therefore, this is a final letter of our intent to request this form. Please be advised, in order for us to proceed with the