DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Everson v. Everson, 537 P.2d 624.

44 citing documents.

  • Olson v. Olson, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Olson v. Olson, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    ¶12 In support of his argument that the cash value of the Northwestern policy should not have been accounted for on equalization, stands for the principle that a life insurance policy, purchased before the marriage and considered separate property, can only be accounted for upon dissolution if the community payments on the policy cause an increase in the cash value of the policy.
  • Bobrow v. Herrod Ex Rel. County of Maricopa 367 P.3d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Bobrow v. Herrod Ex Rel. County of Maricopa 367 P.3d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Husband argues “[Wife] should be entitled to a bond for payments she is actually not receiving as a result of the stay during the appeal” or stated differently, Wife is only entitled to the sums due during the pendency of the appeal.
  • Rueschenberg v. Rueschenberg 196 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • Rueschenberg v. Rueschenberg 196 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    For instance, , that “an increase in value of separate property is subject to the same test as profits from separate property.” 114 Ariz. at 372 , 560 P.2d at 1279 ( , ).
  • Bruce Church, Inc. v. Superior Court 774 P.2d 818 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • Bruce Church, Inc. v. Superior Court 774 P.2d 818 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
    In Application of Lavis, , , reh’g denied, , 294 P. 837 (1931).
  • Kelly v. Kelly 774 P.2d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
  • Kelly v. Kelly 774 P.2d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
  • Carpenter v. Carpenter 722 P.2d 230 Ariz. 1986
  • Carpenter v. Carpenter 722 P.2d 230 Ariz. 1986
  • Koelsch v. Koelsch 713 P.2d 1234 Ariz. 1986
  • Koelsch v. Koelsch 713 P.2d 1234 Ariz. 1986
    The lump sum valuation need only consider the present value of future benefits, the expected life span of the employee spouse, and future increases in the value of the pension plan attributable to the “inherent qualities of the asset itself,”
  • Carpenter v. Carpenter 722 P.2d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • Carpenter v. Carpenter 722 P.2d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • Marriage of Garrett v. Garrett 683 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • Marriage of Garrett v. Garrett 683 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • In Re Marriage of Berger 680 P.2d 1217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • In Re Marriage of Berger 680 P.2d 1217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • Honnas v. Honnas 648 P.2d 1045 Ariz. 1982
  • Honnas v. Honnas 648 P.2d 1045 Ariz. 1982
  • Johnson v. Johnson 638 P.2d 705 Ariz. 1981
  • Johnson v. Johnson 638 P.2d 705 Ariz. 1981
    See Bloomer v. Bloomer, 84 Wis.2d 124 , 267 N.W.2d 235 (1978); , Berry v. Board of Retirement, 23 Cal.App.3d 757 , 100 Cal.Rptr.
  • Marriage of Guffey v. LaChance 618 P.2d 634 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • Marriage of Guffey v. LaChance 618 P.2d 634 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
    Division Two of this court by majority opinion reversed the trial court stating: “ , held that any portion of a pension plan earned during marriage is community property, , that the court squarely held non-vested military benefits attributable to community effort are community property.
  • Reed v. Reed 604 P.2d 648 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • Reed v. Reed 604 P.2d 648 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
    *385 , held that any portion of a pension plan earned during marriage is community property, , that the court squarely held non-vested military benefits attributable to community effort are community property.
  • Bender v. Bender 597 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • Bender v. Bender 597 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • Baum v. Baum 584 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • Baum v. Baum 584 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
    The question of whether an increase in the value of stock of a husband’s
  • In Re the Marriage of Furimsky 595 P.2d 177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • In Re the Marriage of Furimsky 595 P.2d 177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
    § 25-318 which provides that “property acquired by either spouse outside the state shall be deemed to be community property if said property would have been community property if acquired in this state.” See also, , holding that pension plans are a form of compensation and that the portion of the plan earned during coverture is property of the community.
  • Van Loan v. Van Loan 569 P.2d 214 Ariz. 1977
  • Van Loan v. Van Loan 569 P.2d 214 Ariz. 1977
  • Percy v. Percy 564 P.2d 919 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • Percy v. Percy 564 P.2d 919 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • Nelson v. Nelson 560 P.2d 1276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • Nelson v. Nelson 560 P.2d 1276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
    However, an increase in value of separate property is subject to the same test as profits from separate property, , and therefore appellant’s argument fails for the same reasons expressed above.
  • Van Loan v. an Loan 568 P.2d 1076 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • Van Loan v. an Loan 568 P.2d 1076 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • Neal v. Neal 571 P.2d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • Neal v. Neal 571 P.2d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976