Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Noble v. Noble, 546 P.2d 358.

37 citing documents.

Frankson v. Frankson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Frankson v. Frankson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶14 “The commingling of separate and community funds into one account does not transmute the entire account into a community account so long as the funds remain traceable.”
Mayfield v. Mayfield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Mayfield v. Mayfield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶27 “The commingling of separate and community funds into one account does not transmute the entire account into a community account so long as the funds remain traceable.” –96 (1976).
Kim v. Pak 560 P.3d 947 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Kim v. Pak 560 P.3d 947 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Zennaro v. Zennaro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Zennaro v. Zennaro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Benetich v. Benetich, III Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Benetich v. Benetich, III Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
“Furthermore, there is a presumption that where separate and community funds are comingled in one account, payments out of that account for charges against separate property or for separate uses are deemed to be paid out of the separate funds.”
Collier v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Collier v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Stewart v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Stewart v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶10 “The mere fact that the property was commingled does not cause it to lose its separate identity, as long as the separate property can still be identified.” (explaining that commingling does not cause transmutation “so long as the funds remain traceable”).
Baldwin v. Baldwin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Baldwin v. Baldwin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Olade v. Olade Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Olade v. Olade Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Stewart v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Stewart v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-96, -65 (1976) (“The [principle that] commingling of separate and community funds into one account does not transmute the entire account into a community account so long as the funds remain traceable .
TWE Retirement Fund Trust v. Ream 8 P.3d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
TWE Retirement Fund Trust v. Ream 8 P.3d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Moreover, , actually undercuts Appellants' argument.
Matter of Estate of Musgrove 696 P.2d 720 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Matter of Estate of Musgrove 696 P.2d 720 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
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
Bowart v. Bowart 625 P.2d 920 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Bowart v. Bowart 625 P.2d 920 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Eng v. Stein 599 P.2d 796 Ariz. 1979
Eng v. Stein 599 P.2d 796 Ariz. 1979
Tester v. Tester 597 P.2d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Tester v. Tester 597 P.2d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
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
See: , [review denied 1976].
Sommerfield v. Sommerfield 592 P.2d 771 Ariz. 1979
Sommerfield v. Sommerfield 592 P.2d 771 Ariz. 1979
Flowers v. Flowers 578 P.2d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978