In re Carreon (Feb. 4, 2026)

Case details
Full caption
In re the Matter of: Abius Rosas Carreon
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Arizona (AZ)
Court
Arizona Supreme Court
Decided
Feb. 4, 2026
Disposition
Vacated and Remanded
Majority
Fabian (Judge), joined by Brown (Presiding Judge), Weinzweig (Vice Chief Judge)
In re the Matter of: ABIUD ROSAS CARREON,..., Not Reported in Pac.... © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 292003Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDERARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c),THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL ANDMAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1.In re the Matter of: ABIUD ROSASCARREON, Petitioner/Appellee,v.MARIA G. ROSAS RIVERA, Respondent/Appellant.No. 1 CA-CV 25-0415 FC|FILED 02-04-2026Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No.FC2023-001729 No. FC2023-092803 The Honorable MelissaZabor, JudgeVACATED IN PART AND AFFIRMED IN PART ANDREMANDEDAttorneys and Law FirmsAbiud Rosas Carreon Pro Per Petitioner/AppelleeHildebrand Law PC, Tempe By Kip M. Micuda and CarlosNoel Counsel for Respondent/AppellantJudge Veronika Fabian delivered the decision of the Court,in which Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown and Vice ChiefJudge David D. Weinzweig joined.MEMORANDUM DECISIONFABIAN, Judge:*1 ¶1 Maria G. Rosas Rivera (“Mother”) argues the superiorcourt erred in denying her request to amend the final decreeof dissolution (“the Decree”) entered between her and AbiudRosas Carreon (“Father”). The Decree was based on a Rule69 agreement, Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 69, which purported toresolve many issues, including how Mother would acquirethe marital residence. Mother claims the Rule 69 agreementis unenforceable because it lacked mutual assent. This Courtagrees. The transcript memorializing the Rule 69 agreementshows the parties each had their own version of how Motherwould acquire the marital residence. Because the Rule 69agreement lacked mutual assent, it was unenforceable. Thesuperior court's decision is vacated to the extent it relies onthat agreement.DISCUSSION¶2 Mother and Father were married in June 2011 and hadfour children together. The parties petitioned for dissolutionin 2023.¶3 Leading up to the evidentiary hearing, Mother consistentlysought, in settlement negotiations, filings, and her pretrialstatement, spousal maintenance under A.R.S. § 25-319,retroactive child and spousal support, child support, andequitable division of community and joint property (includingtwo of Father's businesses) and debts. Mother's pretrialstatement identified Exhibit B61, entitled “Offsets Related toMarital Home,” which included all of the items Mother waswilling to give up to offset Father's equity in the family home.Father, in his pretrial statement, did not request that Motherbuy out his interest in the marital home. Instead, Fatherrequested the marital home be sold, with each party receivinghalf of the proceeds after reimbursement for Father's Bobrowand Ouster claims.¶4 As part of settlement negotiations, Father offered to giveMother the marital residence in exchange for her waiver ofboth spousal and child support. Although Mother was willingto waive spousal support and back child support, she wouldnot waive future child support. Thus, the parties did not reachsettlement.¶5 On December 12, 2024, the court held an evidentiaryhearing. Both parties were represented by counsel.Immediately before the hearing, counsel met in the hallway,where they believed they reached a Rule 69 agreement onsome issues, which they memorialized on the record:FATHER'S COUNSEL: We did meet and confer thismorning, and we've reached the following agreementsunder Rule 69: Number one, the division of the bankaccounts will be according to the mother's pre-trialstatement, subject to any offset regarding the maritalresidence; number two, the Robinhood account and theTD Ameritrade account have a zero balance as of date ofservice; number three, the life insurance shall be allocatedto each individual as their sole and separate property
In re the Matter of: ABIUD ROSAS CARREON,..., Not Reported in Pac.... © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2without offset; number four, the two automobiles shallbe allocated to each party as sole and separate propertywithout offset, with full indemnification mutually betweenthe parties for any debts; and number five, division ofthe income tax refund, which is anticipated for 2022, orany shortfall or any investigation shall be a communityproperty, debt, or asset and shared equally, whether it's arefund or an amount owed.*2 Did I miss anything, Kip?MOTHER'S COUNSEL: The only thing, Your Honor,is there may be some things that happen in the future,particularly as to tax returns, where my client is going tobe seeking tax advice. So she may be looking to insulateherself from some of the problems that we've been madeaware of. But yeah, that's the statement. And so what's mostimportant to my client is that she is getting the maritalresidence in exchange for the setoffs that are in one of ourexhibits.FATHER'S COUNSEL: Yeah. The sixth item, Your Honor,I neglected to mention. The former marital residence, thatwill be awarded to [Mother] as her sole and separateproperty, subject to a 50 percent equity buyout of [Father]within 120 days of signature of the decree. The mortgageshall continue to be paid 100 percent by [Mother].THE COURT: Counsel, you're going to need to pull thatmicrophone closer to you. Thank you.FATHER'S COUNSEL: I'm sorry.THE COURT: Thanks.MOTHER'S COUNSEL: If I may, Your Honor, part of theconsideration for the marital residence is that my client iswaiving the setoffs, and we can get into that exhibit duringthe testimony. But she's waiving spousal maintenance, she'swaiving past child support, she's waiving her interest in thetwo business interests that we claim interest in, and thenthere's a few other items. But the nut of it is that [Mother] isgetting the marital residence. The two businesses are beinginsulated. She doesn't have an interest. She's waiving. Nomore spousal maintenance. And we're done with all of that.And that's, like, half the case.THE COURT: Yes, or more.FATHER'S COUNSEL: Yeah. And Your Honor, for therecord, the buyout will be dictated by the appraisal that isapproved by the lender for the refinance. Should we review-- well, let's get the Rule 69 behind us, and then we'll talkabout what's coming next.THE COURT: Sounds good, Counsel. Anything else to addto it?MOTHER'S COUNSEL: I can't think of anything, YourHonor.Without repeating the specific terms of the Rule 69Agreement, the court asked Mother and Father to confirmthey heard and agreed to the agreements as described bycounsel. The parties affirmed they did and that the agreementswere full and accurate, fair to both parties, and made withoutthreat. When the court asked the parties whether they wouldlike to draw up a formal agreement, their counsel declined,agreeing the minute entry would be sufficient. The courtaccepted counsel's declarations and the parties’ affirmationsas the basis of a Rule 69 agreement.¶6 Less than two hours after the end of the evidentiaryhearing, Mother's and Father's counsel exchanged emailsregarding the apparent misunderstanding and notified thecourt that the parties were ordering transcripts.¶7 Five days later, on December 17, 2024, the court adoptedthe Rule 69 agreement. The court then entered the Decreeon December 18, 2024, which incorporated the Rule 69agreement:The parties’ Rule 69 agreementincludes the following agreements:Mother agrees to waive her interest inFather's businesses. The parties agreeto divide the financial accounts, basedon Mother's pretrial statement.... Theparties agree that the Robin Hood andAmeritrade accounts have balances of$0. The parties agree that each partyshall keep their own life insurancepolicy, with no offset to the other party.The parties agree to each keep theirown cars, with no offset. The partiesagree that the 2022 tax refund or taxdebt shall be divided equally.
In re the Matter of: ABIUD ROSAS CARREON,..., Not Reported in Pac.... © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3*3 ¶8 The Decree awarded Mother $524.00 per month inchild support and denied requests for spousal maintenanceand child support arrears based on the Rule 69 agreement.The court awarded the marital property to Mother as sole andseparate property, stating:Per the parties’ Rule 69 agreement, thehouse is awarded to Mother. She shallrefinance the home in her name andshall provide a 50% buyout to Fatherwithin 120 days of this Court order.The buyout amount shall be dictatedby the appraisal. Mother will continueto make all mortgage payments.¶9 On January 13, 2025, Mother moved to alter, amend, andgrant relief from the Decree under Rules 83(a)(1) and 85(b),contesting that the Rule 69 agreement reflected the terms asintended and requesting the court amend the agreement for nobuyout term or grant a new trial on Mother's claims.¶10 The court denied Mother's motion, explaining it “madeits findings, consistent with the evidence and testimonypresented at trial, as is within its broad discretion to do.”Mother appealed from the Decree and order denying hermotion to amend the Decree on May 7, 2025. This Court hasjurisdiction over Mother's timely appeal pursuant to ArticleVI, Section 9 of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. §§12-120.21(A)(1) and 2101(A)(1).DISCUSSION¶11 The superior court adopted a Rule 69 agreement, underwhich Mother would buy out Father's interest in the maritalresidence, and waive claims for child support arrears, spousalsupport, and Mother's interest in Father's businesses. Motherargues the court erred because the Rule 69 agreement wasunfair and there was no mutual assent as to material terms orconsideration. This Court agrees the record does not show themutual assent necessary to form a binding Rule 69 agreement.¶12 A Rule 69 agreement is valid and binding if, as relevanthere, “the agreement's terms are stated on the record beforea judge” and “submitted to and approved by the court asprovided by law.” Ariz. R. Fam. P. 69. Courts presume Rule69 agreements are valid and the party challenging the validityhas the burden to prove an agreement has a defect. Ariz. R.Fam. L. P. 69(c).¶13 The validity and enforceability of a separation agreementis a mixed question of law and fact reviewed de novo.Buckholtz v. Buckholtz, 246 Ariz. 126, 129 10 (App. 2019).This Court views the evidence in the light most favorable toupholding the superior court's ruling. In re Marriage of Rojas,255 Ariz. 277, 280 2 (App. 2023).I. The Record Shows the Rule 69 Agreement isUnenforceable Because of a Mutual Mistake.¶14 Mother argues there was a mutual mistake because “theparties and their counsel had different understandings of thematerial terms as to the marital residence.” Specifically, sheclaims she understood she was waiving “claims to offset[Father]’s interest in the home” while Father “understood[Mother] would buy him out” of the marital home.¶15 A separation agreement incorporated into a decree isgoverned by general contract principles and requires mutualassent to be enforceable. See Buckholtz, 246 Ariz. at 129¶¶ 10-11. For a court to adopt an agreement as binding, theparties must mutually assent to all material terms “withoutdoubt or difference” as to the common intent of the parties.Id. at 129 11. Parties to a separation agreement must sharea “common understanding” of material terms for there to bemutual assent. Id. at 130 13. “Mutual assent is based onobjective evidence, not on the hidden intent of the parties, andobjective evidence includes both written and spoken words, aswell as acts.” Id. at 129 11. Reasonable misunderstandingscan be grounds for finding no mutual assent. Id. “Relief isproper if the writing evidencing the purported agreement isuncertain or ambiguous.” Hill-Shafer P'ship v. Chilson Fam.Tr., 165 Ariz. 469, 474 (1990). Finally, “to effectuate a waiverof child support arrearages, the facts must demonstrate by‘clear and compelling evidence’ the voluntary and intentionalabandonment of a known right.” Ray v. Mangum, 163 Ariz.329, 332 (1989) (quoting Cordova v. Lucero, 129 Ariz.184, 187 (App. 1981)); see also Coburn v. Rhodig, 243Ariz. 24, 26 ¶¶ 10-11 (App. 2017) (applying the clear andcompelling evidence standard from Ray, 163 Ariz. at 332,to enforceability of Rule 69 agreement for spousal supportarrearages).*4 ¶16 The transcript from the December 2024 hearingshows there was no agreement. It shows no meetingof the minds on a material term—how Mother would
In re the Matter of: ABIUD ROSAS CARREON,..., Not Reported in Pac.... © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.4acquire Father's interest in the marital home. Mother'scounsel described a “setoff” in which Mother acquired thehome in exchange for waiving spousal maintenance, pastchild support, and her interest in two community-ownedbusinesses. Father's counsel described a “buyout” in whichMother acquired the home in exchange for one-half itsappraised equity. The transcript does not reflect mutualassent; it shows two attorneys talking past one another.¶17 There is no dispute that the interest in the maritalresidence was material to the agreement. Because there wasno mutual assent as to this material term, this Court vacatesthe superior court's order to the extent that it relies on theunenforceable Rule 69 agreement. The parties’ remainingarguments and other pending claims should be determinedby the superior court on remand as if no Rule 69 agreementwas reached. See Jacobs v. Jacobs, 259 Ariz. 467, 14 (App.2025).II. Father's Legal Citations Contain Substantial Defects.¶18 Mother points out “[m]any of [Father's] citations areincomplete, a sign of the use of [Artificial Intelligence].” ThisCourt's review reveals that three of the five cases Father citedin his opening brief contain substantial defects, includingunsupported premises and fabricated quotations. Thus, thisCourt finds Father's opening brief violates Arizona Ruleof Civil Appellate Procedure 13(a)(7), which requires thatarguments contain citations to legal authority.¶19 Compliance with this Court's rules is not optional. Theintegrity of the appellate process depends on accurate andhonest advocacy. In the future, failure to provide accuratelegal authority may result in sanctions. See Ariz. R. Civ. App.P. 13(a)(7).III. Attorney's Fees and Costs on Appeal.¶20 Both parties request attorney's fees and costs pursuant toA.R.S. § 25-324(A). Because Mother is the successful partyon appeal, this Court awards Mother her taxable costs, A.R.S.§ 12-341, contingent upon her compliance with Arizona Ruleof Civil Appellate Procedure 21, but denies Mother's andFather's requests for attorney's fees.CONCLUSION¶21 Because the Rule 69 agreement lacked mutual assent,it is unenforceable. The Decree is vacated to the extent itrelies on the Rule 69 agreement and the case is remanded tothe superior court for further proceedings consistent with thisdecision.All CitationsNot Reported in Pac. Rptr., 2026 WL 292003End of Document© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access