Courtney Robertson, 43, the winner of Ben Flajnik's 2012 season of The Bachelor, filed for divorce from husband Humberto Preciado on July 11, 2026, ending an eight-year relationship. Because the couple married in a 2020 Sedona ceremony and reportedly live in Arizona, their case will proceed under Arizona's no-fault system—meaning Robertson's stated reason, that trust was "irreparably damaged," carries no legal weight in dividing property or awarding support.
Key Facts
| Detail | Information |
|---|---|
| What happened | Courtney Robertson filed for divorce from Humberto Preciado |
| When | July 11, 2026 |
| Where | Arizona (2020 marriage in Sedona) |
| Who's affected | Robertson, 43, Preciado, and their three young children |
| Key statute | A.R.S. § 25-312 (dissolution grounds) |
| Practical impact | No-fault filing; "trust" betrayal irrelevant to asset/support outcomes |
According to People, Robertson said she acted "after learning information that irreparably damaged the trust in our marriage." She described the couple's three young children as her "highest priority." While emotionally significant, that language describes the human reason for the split—not a legal ground that Arizona courts weigh when deciding how to unwind an eight-year marriage.
Why this matters legally
Arizona is a pure no-fault divorce state, which means a spouse's alleged misconduct—including breaches of trust or infidelity—does not change how a court divides property or awards spousal maintenance. Under A.R.S. § 25-312, the only finding a court needs to grant a standard dissolution is that the marriage is "irretrievably broken." One spouse's belief that trust was destroyed is legally sufficient; the other spouse cannot block the divorce by disputing that characterization.
This distinction surprises many people. Public statements about betrayal generate headlines, but Arizona no-fault divorce law deliberately removes moral blame from the equation. The reason someone files rarely affects the outcome. Instead, Arizona courts focus on community property division and, where children are involved, the best interests of those children. Robertson's public framing is about closure, not legal leverage.
How Arizona law handles this
Arizona divides marital assets under community property rules, not equitable distribution. Under A.R.S. § 25-318, most property and debt acquired during the marriage is presumed to belong equally to both spouses and is divided "equitably," which in Arizona practice usually means roughly 50/50. Because the couple married in 2020, assets accumulated over roughly six years of marriage—income, retirement contributions, and jointly titled property—are presumptively community property. Property either spouse owned before the 2020 wedding, or received by gift or inheritance, generally remains separate under Arizona law.
Trust betrayal does not shift this split. Arizona courts will not award Robertson a larger share because she feels wronged, nor penalize either spouse for the conduct that ended the marriage. The exception is financial misconduct—if one spouse hid, wasted, or dissipated community assets, a court can adjust the division to account for that waste. That is a financial question, not a moral one.
With three young children, parenting will dominate this case. Arizona uses "legal decision-making" and "parenting time" rather than the older term "custody." Under A.R.S. § 25-403, courts decide these issues based on the best interests of the child, weighing factors including each parent's relationship with the children, the children's adjustment to home and community, and each parent's mental and physical health. Arizona law expresses a strong policy favoring substantial, continuing contact with both fit parents. Child support is then calculated under the Arizona Child Support Guidelines, which use both parents' incomes and parenting-time shares. Parents facing changed circumstances later can pursue child support modification or adjustments to spousal maintenance.
Before any of this is decided, Arizona imposes a mandatory waiting period. Under A.R.S. § 25-329, no divorce decree can be entered until at least 60 days have passed from the date the responding spouse was served. That means the earliest a court could finalize this dissolution is roughly mid-September 2026, and contested parenting or property issues typically extend that timeline considerably.
Practical takeaways
-
Understand that in Arizona, why you divorce rarely changes the outcome. The state's no-fault framework under A.R.S. § 25-312 means you do not need to prove wrongdoing, and your spouse cannot use "trust" as a shield. Focus your energy on financial disclosure and parenting, not blame.
-
Know that community property is presumptively split near 50/50. Under A.R.S. § 25-318, assets acquired between your wedding date and separation are shared. Identify what is separate (pre-marriage assets, gifts, inheritances) early, and gather documentation to trace it.
-
Prioritize a workable parenting plan. Arizona courts apply the best-interests standard of A.R.S. § 25-403 and favor both parents staying meaningfully involved. Come prepared with a proposed schedule rather than leaving it to a judge who does not know your family.
-
Plan for the 60-day minimum. Under A.R.S. § 25-329, no Arizona divorce finalizes in under 60 days after service, and most take far longer. Use our Arizona divorce timeline tool to set realistic expectations, and estimate costs with the Arizona divorce cost estimator.
-
Confirm the residency basics before filing. Arizona requires at least one spouse to have lived in the state for 90 days before filing. If you are unsure, review our guide to residency requirements and the overall divorce process so nothing derails your petition on a technicality.
If you are navigating a separation with children and shared assets, mapping your next steps early prevents costly mistakes. You can build a personalized divorce roadmap tailored to your situation, or find a divorce attorney in your Arizona county when you are ready for professional guidance.
This article discusses recent news and provides general legal commentary. It does not constitute legal advice. Every case is unique. Consult a qualified family law attorney for advice specific to your situation.