Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Baures v. Baures, 478 P.2d 130.

34 citing documents.

Johnson v. Johnson 988 P.2d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Johnson v. Johnson 988 P.2d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State Ex Rel. Department of Economic Security v. McEvoy 955 P.2d 988 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State Ex Rel. Department of Economic Security v. McEvoy 955 P.2d 988 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
(holding that father still owed duty of support despite mother’s interference with father’s right to custody); , (holding that parent’s removal of child from jurisdiction, thereby depriving obligor of opportunity for visitation, did not work forfeiture of child support payments).
Schnepp v. State Ex Rel. Department of Economic Security 899 P.2d 185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Schnepp v. State Ex Rel. Department of Economic Security 899 P.2d 185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State Ex Rel. Department of Economic Security v. Dodd 888 P.2d 1370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State Ex Rel. Department of Economic Security v. Dodd 888 P.2d 1370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Guzman v. Guzman 854 P.2d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Guzman v. Guzman 854 P.2d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
266, 268 , we stated that “each installment as it becomes due is in the nature of a final judgment conclusively establishing the rights and duties of the parties to that installment.” Similarly, , Division Two of this Court noted that “a father who is required to make periodic payments for the support of minor children has an opportunity to relieve himself of that liability by a petition to modify the decree in futuro but he cannot remain silent while the installments accrue.” H
Huskie v. Ames Bros. Motor & Supply Co. 678 P.2d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Huskie v. Ames Bros. Motor & Supply Co. 678 P.2d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Cordova v. Lucero 629 P.2d 1020 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Cordova v. Lucero 629 P.2d 1020 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
the court refused to apply the doctrine of laches to excuse the collection of child support arrearage.
Marriage of Andrews v. Andrews 612 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Marriage of Andrews v. Andrews 612 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
For a case holding that credit may not be allowed against child support arrearages for periods during which the child lives with the parent whose obligation it is to make the pay *59 ments
Lopez v. Lopez 609 P.2d 579 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Lopez v. Lopez 609 P.2d 579 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Beck v. Jaeger 604 P.2d 18 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Beck v. Jaeger 604 P.2d 18 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Ibach v. Ibach 600 P.2d 1370 Ariz. 1979
Ibach v. Ibach 600 P.2d 1370 Ariz. 1979
Badertscher v. Badertscher, 10 Ariz.App.
Corbett v. Corbett 569 P.2d 292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Corbett v. Corbett 569 P.2d 292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
While laches may constitute a defense to a claim for accrued but unpaid alimony and child support obligations, , , the defense is unavailable “absent a showing of abandon *353 ment by appellant [in this case petitioner] of her claim or prejudice to the appellee.” Baures v. Baures, supra at 520, 478 P.2d at 135 .
Jarvis v. Jarvis 553 P.2d 1251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Jarvis v. Jarvis 553 P.2d 1251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Badertscher v. Badertscher, 10 Ariz.App.
Chudzinski v. Chudzinski 546 P.2d 1139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Robles v. Robles 546 P.2d 1138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Robles v. Robles 546 P.2d 1138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
For this argument she relies upon Baures v. Baures, 13 Ariz.App, 515
Chudzinski v. Chudzinski 546 P.2d 1139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Stanley v. Stanley 535 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Stanley v. Stanley 535 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
*39 (1970); Badertscher v. Badertscher, 10 Ariz.App.
Kahn v. Kahn 532 P.2d 541 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Kahn v. Kahn 532 P.2d 541 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
It is appellant’s , the court erred in not granting her the child support arrearages.