An Arizona couple built three businesses during their marriage, including a car-rental venture; during their divorce, the husband disputed a $305,800 business valuation and $95,000 in alleged loans, but an appeals court upheld the lower court’s ruling
An Arizona couple built three businesses during their marriage, including a car-rental venture; during their divorce, the husband disputed a $305,800 business valuation and $95,000 in alleged loans, but an appeals court upheld the lower court’s rulingAn Arizona appeals court has upheld a divorce ruling that split a couple’s three businesses and refused to share $95,000 in loans the husband said were marital debt. The court found the husband’s loan papers lacked credibility, and it accepted a $305,800 valuation of one company even though he refused to give the expert his financial records. The decision, issued October 30, 2026, is a non-precedential memorandum, so it does not set a rule for other cases.
A marriage, three business and money fights
The Arizona couple married in September 2016. Over the next several years, they built three businesses together: a company that took the couple’s name, a car-rental business run through the Turo platform, and a second company under the wife’s name. When the marriage ended, they had to decide who got what.In December 2023, the wife filed for divorce and served the husband a week later. The Maricopa County Superior Court held a one-day trial to split the couple’s debts, property, and businesses. The husband later appealed, representing himself.
The husband refused to provide financial records
After filing the appeal, the court appointed an expert, chosen by both spouses, to value the first company. The expert asked the husband for payroll records and tax forms, however, he refused to hand them over. The expert still reached a value of $305,800, and the trial court accepted it.The husband wasn’t happy with the valuation. He argued that the business had no hard assets and that the expert focused too much on one unusually profitable year. He also said the expert was biased. The appeals court disagreed. It said the expert explained his work and listed the documents he used. A zero value, the court noted, would ignore goodwill, which can carry real money in a business.Though the Turo business was jointly owned, the husband ran it. He bought several cars with loans, and the amounts owed were more than the cars were worth. He also claimed tax deductions for depreciating the cars, and kept the rental profits.The husband failed to disclose profits or tax gains during the case. The cars were worth less than what was owed, and that difference is called negative equity. The court split the negative equity. It gave the husband the cars, the profits he had taken, and the tax benefits. The wife was responsible for half the gap, minus an offset for what the husband owed her from other property. The appeals court said the facts supported this approach.The couple had taken a second mortgage to start the second company. By the time of the divorce, nobody argued that the business was worth anything. The husband claimed the wife wasted marital money. She testified that he agreed to the loan and that the money went to credit card debt, home repairs, and a horse structure next to the house.Eventually, the husband agreed to give the business to the wife with no payment to him, even though he had taken the opposite position for most of the case. The court awarded it to her. His claims about money being wasted failed because he never testified and his spreadsheets did not show how the wife had wasted money.
The husband asked to split the loans equally
The husband requested the court to split three personal loans equally: $80,000 from his parents, $10,000 from one friend, and $5,000 from another. Under Arizona law, debt taken on during a marriage is usually shared. He gave the court documents only one month before trial, and they had no notarization. The wife said she had no idea about the loans and believed he made the papers for the trial. The judge did not find the documents credible and refused to split the debt. As a result, all the four arguments raised by the husband were rejected by the Arizona Court of Appeals. The court said it would not reweigh the evidence or second-guess the trial judge’s view of who was telling the truth. The wife asked for her attorneys’ fees, but the court denied that request. The decision was issued on October 30, 2026. It is a memorandum decision, which means it is not binding precedent in other cases.
Source link
