Myers v. Huang

── Myers v. Huang ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: May 28, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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: CLARENCE HARVEY MYERS,1 Petitioner/Appellant, v. GUOYU HUANG, Respondent/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV 25-0622 FC FILED 05-28-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. FN2025-000169 The Honorable Melissa Zabor, Judge AFFIRMED PARTIES Clarence Myers-Huang, Phoenix Petitioner/Appellant Guoyu Huang, Tempe Respondent/Appellee 1 On the court’s own motion, the caption is amended as set forth above to reflect the appellant’s restored name.  MYERS v. HUANG Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Andrew J. Becke joined. C A T T A N I, Judge: ¶1 Clarence Myers appeals from the decree dissolving his marriage to Guoyu Huang, challenging the award of spousal maintenance in favor of Huang. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 Myers and Huang were married in April 2024. Myers petitioned for dissolution in January 2025, less than one year later. After an evidentiary hearing at which both Myers and Huang testified, the superior court entered a dissolution decree ordering Myers to pay Huang spousal maintenance of $1,000 per month for 6 months. The decree also made Huang fully responsible for paying rent for the parties’ once-shared apartment from January 2025 (when Huang ousted Myers from the property) through the end of the lease term. ¶3 Myers timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(1). DISCUSSION ¶4 Myers challenges the spousal maintenance award, asserting that the court failed to consider or properly assess Huang’s ability to support himself, the marriage’s short duration, or the alleged financial hardship the award causes Myers. We review the award for an abuse of discretion. See Leathers v. Leathers, 216 Ariz. 374, 376, ¶ 9 (App. 2007). We defer to the superior court’s weighing of the evidence and assessment of witness credibility. Andrews v. Andrews, 252 Ariz. 415, 417, ¶ 7 (App. 2021). And because Myers did not provide a transcript of the dissolution trial, we presume that transcript would support the superior court’s findings. See ARCAP 11(c)(1)(A)–(B); Baker v. Baker, 183 Ariz. 70, 73 (App. 1995). ¶5 A party is eligible for spousal maintenance if the superior court finds the existence of any one of the grounds listed in A.R.S. § 25- 319(A). See Cullum v. Cullum, 215 Ariz. 352, 354, ¶ 11 (App. 2007); see also 2  MYERS v. HUANG Decision of the Court Arizona Spousal Maintenance Guidelines, A.R.S. § 25-319 app. (“Guidelines”) I.D. The court here found two such statutory grounds: that Huang lacked sufficient property to meet his own needs and temporarily lacked the earning capacity to be self-sufficient. See A.R.S. § 25-319(A)(1), (2). Specifically, the court found that Huang relied on public assistance for food and health insurance (although he had a car and some savings) and was not authorized to work in the United States (although he had applied for labor certification, a process he anticipated would take six months). ¶6 Myers challen