 in Gila River Sys. & Source, 198 Ariz. 330, 340, ¶ 25 (2000)
(“The trial court, not this court, weighs the evidence and resolves any
conflicting facts, expert opinions, and inferences therefrom.”); see also Mary
Lou C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 207 Ariz. 43, 47, ¶ 8 (App. 2004) (the trial
court is “in the best position to weigh the evidence, judge the credibility of
the parties, observe the parties, and make appropriate factual findings”).

¶16            Wife testified that husband kept a large sum of cash hidden
in the home in a shoe box. Following a physical altercation between
husband and wife, in which both party’s fathers intervened, wife witnessed
husband give his father an item wrapped in a shirt. Shortly after witnessing
this act, wife overheard her father-in-law tell someone that he needed to
leave because his car was “loaded,” and he was worried about cash. Wife
then went to check on the cash in its normal hiding place and it was gone.



                                       5
                       HALLOUM v. HASASNEH
                         Decision of the Court

¶17           Wife also testified that she had gold jewelry worth between
$150,000 and $200,000 that she kept hidden in the house. Some of the
jewelry was gifted from husband, who had been a gold dealer prior to the
marriage, and others were family heirlooms. Wife testified that just before
the hearing for temporary orders she saw husband driving around her
neighborhood. She decided to take the children and leave the home. When
she returned she saw that the front door was open, there was broken glass
on the garage door and her jewelry was missing. Additionally, according to
the police report, a neighbor saw a truck matching husband’s parked in the
driveway the weekend the jewelry was taken. Although husband testified
that he did not take any cash or jewelry, the trial court specifically found
that husband’s testimony was not credible but wife’s was.

¶18           The trial court therefore attributed $600,