Cited by

"When it appears that two statutes conflict, 'whenever possible, we adopt a construction that reconciles one with the other, giving force and meaning to all statutes involved.'" ¶ 12 (App. 2008) (quoting UNUM Life Ins.

ting down or was shut down[.]” ¶5 Wife’s pretrial statement indicated that her valuation expert, Melissa Loughlin-Sines (“Ms. Sines”), concluded the community was 2 DIVRIS v. MYATT Decision of the Court entitled to a 100% lien on Velox Air’s

render[ed] a tracing of sole and separate and community funds unreliable.”

Cockrill, 124 Ariz. at 54 (citation omitted); ¶ 19 (App. 2008) (“The entire purpose of .

¶ 34 (App. 2008); (stating, in such circumstances, “the burden is upon the spouse who contends that the increase is also separate property to prove that the increase is the result of the inherent value of the [business] itself and is not the product of the work effor

Although the increase in value of a separate business may be equitably apportioned if community efforts caused a portion of that increase, ¶ 20 (App. 2008), the record supports the court’s finding that the community expended no funds on Father’s separate real properties and that Mother presented no credible evidence to support her claim that the community’s efforts increased the value of these properties during the marriage.

See Cockrill, 124 Ariz. at 52; –53, ¶¶ 12–14 (App. 2008).

¶ 20 (App. 2008) (“[T]he trial court must equitably apportion the .

AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court FILED: AA 2 controls this issue, but that case dealt with apportioning the earnings and increased value of a spouse’s separate medical hardware business.

¶13 “[I]t was within the trial court’s discretion to start with the presumption that all of the growth in [the husband’s separate property] was community property and then look to the evidence presented by [the h]usband to see if he had managed to overcome that presumption.” ¶ 35 (App. 2008).

Mother asserts, (holding the trial court must equitably apportion the combined total of the profits and increase in value of the separate business if community efforts caused a portion of that increase and substantial justice required it), that the family court here erred in undertaking a debunked “all or nothing” de

¶ 31, (“Where either spouse is engaged in a business whose capital is the separate property of such spouse, the profits of the business are either community or separate in accordance with whether they are the result of the individual toil and application of the spouse, or the inhere

These earnings (called 'normalized earnings’) are multiplied by a capitalization rate (normally the reciprocal of the desired rate of return) to arrive at the value of the business.” , 251 n. 2, ¶ 4, , 854 n. 2 (App.2008) (citation omitted).