Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Jarvis v. Jarvis, 553 P.2d 1251.

54 citing documents.

Porter v. Mayberry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Porter v. Mayberry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Peralta v. Murray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Peralta v. Murray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. McEvoy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. McEvoy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
is in the nature of a final judgment conclusively establishing the rights and duties of the parties to that installment.” –68 (1976).
Schecter v. Cassidy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Schecter v. Cassidy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
see also Alley, 209 Ariz. at 428, ¶ 7.
Flood Control District v. Paloma Investment Ltd. Partnership 350 P.3d 826 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Flood Control District v. Paloma Investment Ltd. Partnership 350 P.3d 826 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
at ¶ 14 (-68 , -53 (1976)).
In Re the Marriage of Priessman 266 P.3d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
In Re the Marriage of Priessman 266 P.3d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
(no power to modify decree as to past-due installments); -68, -53 (1976) (same).
STATE EX REL. AZ. STR. PEST CONT. v. Taylor 224 P.3d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
STATE EX REL. AZ. STR. PEST CONT. v. Taylor 224 P.3d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
See, -64 , (installment contract created "indebtedness"); , (court-ordered spousal maintenance or child support constitutes a "legal indebtedness" on which interest accrues from the date it is due).
Marriage of Alley v. Stevens 104 P.3d 157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Marriage of Alley v. Stevens 104 P.3d 157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Martin v. Martin 7 P.3d 144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Martin v. Martin 7 P.3d 144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
-68 , -53 (1976); see also A.R.S.
In Re the Marriage of Yuro 968 P.2d 1053 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
In Re the Marriage of Yuro 968 P.2d 1053 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Evitt v. Evitt 877 P.2d 282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Evitt v. Evitt 877 P.2d 282 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
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, in Baures v. Baures, 13 Ariz.App.
In Re the Marriage of Ramirez 840 P.2d 311 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
In Re the Marriage of Ramirez 840 P.2d 311 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
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.” -68 , -53 (1976).
Cooper v. Cooper 808 P.2d 1234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Cooper v. Cooper 808 P.2d 1234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Schroeder v. Schroeder 778 P.2d 1212 Ariz. 1989
Schroeder v. Schroeder 778 P.2d 1212 Ariz. 1989
Tande v. Bongiovanni 678 P.2d 531 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Tande v. Bongiovanni 678 P.2d 531 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Pflum v. Pflum 660 P.2d 1231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Pflum v. Pflum 660 P.2d 1231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Westberry v. Reynolds 653 P.2d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Westberry v. Reynolds 653 P.2d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
this court was also concerned with the issue of fixing interest on a child support arrearage judgment.
Teed v. Ridco Realty, Inc. 655 P.2d 798 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Teed v. Ridco Realty, Inc. 655 P.2d 798 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Teed, while recognizing the existence of the rule stated in McClanahan
Jorgensen v. Jorgensen 640 P.2d 202 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Jorgensen v. Jorgensen 640 P.2d 202 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Division One of this court affirmed a trial court’s reduction of the father’s support obligation where the mother *274 had been unemployed at the time of the divorce, but had since obtained employment.
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
*186 , where this court held that installments' of child support become vested as they become due and that such child support payments cannot be modified retroactively.
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
Marce v. Bailey 636 P.2d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Marce v. Bailey 636 P.2d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Linton v. Linton, 17 Ariz.App.
Ibach v. Ibach 600 P.2d 1370 Ariz. 1979
Ibach v. Ibach 600 P.2d 1370 Ariz. 1979
306 , ” -68 , -53 (1976).
Harding v. Sutherlin 584 P.2d 1184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Harding v. Sutherlin 584 P.2d 1184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
In Arizona child support installments become vested when due and each installment as it falls due “is in tne nature of a final judgment conclusively establishing the rights and duties of the parties to that installment.”