DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Marriage of Brebaugh v. Deane, 118 P.3d 43.

50 citing documents.

  • Howie v. Howie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Howie v. Howie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    ¶ 15 (App. 2005) (noting “the presumption that [stock options] granted during the marriage are entirely community property”); Goodell, 257 Ariz. at ¶ 32, 551 P.3d at 1185 (observing that RSUs are treated like stock options when dividing marital property).
  • Kumbera v. Manickam Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Kumbera v. Manickam Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Kane v. Kane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Kane v. Kane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    ¶11 “Property acquired by either spouse during marriage is presumed to be community property, and the spouse seeking to overcome the presumption has the burden of establishing a separate character of the property by clear and convincing evidence.” –98 ¶ 6 (App. 2005) ().
  • Bassal v. Khalil Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Bassal v. Khalil Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Elliston v. Elliston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Elliston v. Elliston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Collier v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Collier v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    –98, ¶ 6 (App. 2005) (); see A.R.S.
  • Acuna v. Pineda Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Acuna v. Pineda Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    § 25-211(A), and a spouse seeking to rebut that presumption must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the property is separate, -98, ¶ 6 (App. 2005) (citation omitted).
  • Labarge v. Abdullahi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Labarge v. Abdullahi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Vasquez v. Vasquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Vasquez v. Vasquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    § 25-211(A); -98, ¶ 6 (App. 2005).
  • Wheeler v. Dexter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Wheeler v. Dexter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    § 25-211(A); ¶ 12 (App. 2010); –98, ¶ 6 (App. 2005); see also A.R.S.
  • Andrews v. Andrews 504 P.3d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Andrews v. Andrews 504 P.3d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    See Koelsch, 148 Ariz. at 181; ¶ 8 (App. 2005).
  • Larchick v. Pollock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Larchick v. Pollock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    To rebut this strong presumption, the spouse contending such property is separate has the burden of establishing the property is inherently separate by “clear and convincing evidence.” -23 (1968) (citations omitted); -98, ¶ 6 (App. 2005).
  • Gonzalez v. Gonzalez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Gonzalez v. Gonzalez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    § 25-211(A); –98, ¶ 6 (App. 2005).
  • Saba v. Khoury 481 P.3d 1167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Saba v. Khoury 481 P.3d 1167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    § 25-211(A); –98, ¶ 6 (App. 2005).
  • Silva v. Silva Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Silva v. Silva Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    § 25-211(A); -98, ¶ 6 (App. 2005).
  • Hovannisian v. Hovannisian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Hovannisian v. Hovannisian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    –101, ¶¶ 19–21, 25 (App. 2005).
  • Femiano v. Maust 463 P.3d 237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Femiano v. Maust 463 P.3d 237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    § 25-211(A); –98, ¶ 6 (App. 2005).
  • Morris v. Morris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Defrancesco v. Defrancesco 455 P.3d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Defrancesco v. Defrancesco 455 P.3d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    -03 (App. 1985); -99, ¶¶ 8, 15 (App. 2005) (status of stock options that had not vested before the dissolution petition was served depended primarily on whether the employer gave them as "compensation for work performed" or as an incentive to encourage the spouse to remain with the company); (App.
  • Morris v. Morris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    -98, ¶ 6 (App. 2005); see A.R.S.
  • Krenzen v. Katz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Krenzen v. Katz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    -98, ¶¶ 6-7 (App. 2005); see also A.R.S.
  • Snook v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Snook v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    –98, ¶ 6 (App. 2005) (); see A.R.S.
  • Schickner v. Schickner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Schickner v. Schickner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    Schickner, 237 Ariz. at 199-200, ¶¶ 22, 27 ( ¶¶ 6-7 (App. 2005) (recognizing that “compensation for a spouse’s post- dissolution efforts is sole and separate property”)).
  • Schickner v. Schickner 348 P.3d 890 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Schickner v. Schickner 348 P.3d 890 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Cutter v. Cutter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Cutter v. Cutter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    ¶14 “Property acquired by either spouse during marriage is presumed to be community property, and the spouse seeking to overcome the presumption has the burden of establishing a separate character of the property by clear and convincing evidence.” -98, ¶ 6, -46 (App. 2005).
  • Marriage of Bell-Kilbourn v. Bell-Kilbourn 169 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • Marriage of Bell-Kilbourn v. Bell-Kilbourn 169 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    Husband responds that the house was presumptively a community asset because it was acquired during the marriage, -98, ¶ 6 , -46 (App.2005), and Wife failed to rebut that presumption merely by pointing to the disclaimer deed.