Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Marriage of McNutt v. McNutt, 49 P.3d 300.

108 citing documents.

Amadore v. Lifgren 431 P.3d 579 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Amadore v. Lifgren 431 P.3d 579 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
We review the interpretation of the Guidelines and applicable statutes de novo, ¶ 7 (App. 2015), and “apply the same rules of construction in interpreting the Guidelines that we use in construing statutes,” ¶ 10 (App. 2002) (citation omitted).
El-Sharkawy v. El-Sharkawy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
El-Sharkawy v. El-Sharkawy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
4 -32, ¶ 14 (App. 2002) ( n.3 (Utah App. 1995)).
Alvarado v. Apodaca Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Alvarado v. Apodaca Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
As property taxes may be necessary business expenses for rental property, ¶ 4 (App. 2002), we reject Father's contention that the court erred by taking into account Mother's net rental income rather than her gross rental income.
Navarro v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Navarro v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Boyilla v. Boyilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Boyilla v. Boyilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Sarbu v. Carp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Sarbu v. Carp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Lundy v. Lundy 394 P.3d 25 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Lundy v. Lundy 394 P.3d 25 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Section 5(A)’s intent is “consistent with the concept of full-time employment.” ¶ 17 (App. 2002).
Uthe v. Uthe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Uthe v. Uthe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sherman v. Sherman 384 P.3d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sherman v. Sherman 384 P.3d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 14 Under the Guidelines, the first step in calculating child support is to determine “gross income.” ¶ 11
Weeks v. Weeks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Weeks v. Weeks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶8 We will uphold the court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous or unsupported by any credible evidence, but we draw our own legal conclusions from the facts found or implied by the family court, ¶ 6 (App. 2002).
Simon v. Simon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Simon v. Simon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Calcagno v. Ainbinder Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Calcagno v. Ainbinder Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Thompson v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Thompson v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
ome greater than what would have been earned from full- time employment,” Father fails to address the direction that the court “may, however, consider income actually earned that is greater than would have been earned by full-time employment if that income was historically earned from a regular schedule and is anticipated to continue into the future.” Guidelines § 5(A); -32, ¶ 14 (App. 2002) (“[W]e do not believe the amended Guidelines entitle a parent who continues to work the same schedule as
Martinez v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Martinez v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
§ 25-320 app. § 27 (Supp. 2015) (“Guidelines”); ¶ 26 (App. 2002) (holding family court is required to allocate federal tax exemptions); (holding family court abused its discretion by failing to allocate tax exemption).
Clark v. Clark Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Clark v. Clark Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
In support, in which this court held that employment exceeding 40 hours per week did not necessarily include overtime.
Smith v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Smith v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Milinovich v. Womack 343 P.3d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Milinovich v. Womack 343 P.3d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Shifflett v. Porter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Shifflett v. Porter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Kang v. Kang Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Kang v. Kang Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Rhoads v. Bar-Haim Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Rhoads v. Bar-Haim Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Nachiappan v. Subramanian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Nachiappan v. Subramanian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“We accept the court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous.” ¶ 6
Nash v. Nash 307 P.3d 40 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Nash v. Nash 307 P.3d 40 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
In Re Marriage of Gibbs 258 P.3d 221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Gibbs v. Gibbs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
In Re Marriage of Gibbs 258 P.3d 221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
But “we ‘draw our own legal conclusions from [the] facts found or implied in the judgment.’ ” See id., , *407 , -11 (2002) (trial court’s interpretation and conclusions of law reviewed de novo).
Gibbs v. Gibbs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
But “we „draw our own legal conclusions from [the] facts found or implied in the judgment.‟” See id., -11 (2002) (trial court‟s interpretation and conclusions of law reviewed de novo).
Valento v. Valento 240 P.3d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Valento v. Valento 240 P.3d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010