In a riveting case that highlights the complexities of marital asset division, an Arizona appellate court has upheld a lower court’s decision regarding the dissolution of a marriage and the associated financial entanglements. On November 28, 2025, Sarah Crimson Myatt filed an appeal in the Arizona Court of Appeals against Michael Nicholas Divris, challenging the Superior Court’s decision in Maricopa County that denied her claim to a lien on her former husband’s business.
The heart of this legal battle lies in whether Velox Air, Inc., a company owned by Michael Divris, increased in value during their marriage due to community efforts. Myatt argued that Velox Air’s value surged during their union and thus sought a 100% equitable lien on this increase. However, the court found no evidence supporting her claim. The ruling emphasized that Velox Air was merely a successor to another company owned by Divris before their marriage—Velox Construction—and therefore did not appreciate in value as Myatt alleged.
Myatt and Divris married on December 31, 2019, and separated less than two years later when Divris filed for divorce on September 15, 2021. Before marrying Myatt, Divris had already established multiple businesses including Velox Construction and Velox Air. Despite Myatt’s claims that Velox Air had no operational value at the time of their marriage and only began operations post-nuptials using assets from Velox Construction, she admitted unfamiliarity with pre-marriage financial activities of Velox Air.
During trial proceedings, Myatt presented expert testimony from Melissa Loughlin-Sines who estimated Velox Air’s value at $810,000 as of September 2021 but failed to establish its pre-marriage valuation or perform an analysis under Rueschenberg v. Rueschenberg standards. Contrarily, Divris’ expert Frank Pankow argued there was continuity between Velox Construction and Velox Air with no significant change in operations or management post-marriage; hence any perceived increase in value was non-existent.
The court sided with Pankow’s assessment that the business had not appreciated during the marriage period based on evidence including existing contracts and assets transferred from Velox Construction to Velox Air without consideration. As such, it ruled against awarding any additional allocation to the marital community based on alleged business growth.
Sarah Myatt sought reversal of this decision but failed to convince the appellate judges who found substantial evidence supporting continuity between Divris’ businesses pre- and post-marriage. Consequently, they affirmed there was no entitlement for community property claims over separate property increases unless proven otherwise—a burden Myatt did not meet according to judicial review standards.
Legal representation for Michael Nicholas Divris was provided by Jeffrey G. Pollitt PC while Genesis Legal Group represented Sarah Crimson Myatt throughout these proceedings overseen by Judge Quintin H. Cushner at Maricopa County Superior Court under Case ID FN2021-093118.
Source: 1CACV250222_Divris_v_Myatt_Opinion_Arizona_Court_of_Appeals.pdf