Cited by

The court “has broad discretion in determining what allocation of property and debt is equitable under the circumstances.” ¶ 7 (App. 2010).

¶26 The superior court has “broad discretion in determining what allocation of property and debt is equitable under the circumstances,” and we will not disturb this determination “absent a clear abuse of discretion.” ¶ 7 (App. 2010); ¶ 14 (App. 2010).

§ 25-318(C); Kline v. Kline, 221 Ariz, 564, P.3d 599 (App. 2010); P.2d 295 (1975)).

In most cases, a substantially equal division is equitable unless there is “a sound reason to divide the property otherwise.” ¶ 6 (App. 2010)

§ 25-318(A); ¶ 6 (App. 2010).

The court has “broad discretion in determining what allocation of property and debt is equitable under the circumstances,” and we will not disturb this determination “absent a clear abuse of discretion.”

§ 25-318(B–C), alongside “all factors that bear on the equities of the division, including the length of the marriage; the contributions of each spouse to the community, financial or otherwise; the source of funds used to acquire the property to be divided; the allocation of debt; as well as any other factor that may affect the outcome.” ¶ 18 (App. 2010).

Section 25-318(C) allows the court to consider “excessive or abnormal expenditures, destruction, concealment or fraudulent disposition,” and the court also may consider “any other factors that bear on the equities of a case.” ¶ 14 (App. 2010).

3 ¶ 7 (App. 2010); ¶ 13 (App. 2007).

Recognizing the court has broad discretion when apportioning community property and debts, ¶ 7 (App. 2010), Mother has not shown that discretion was abused here.

¶ 12, n.3 (App. 2010) (“[W]hen making an equitable division of jointly held property upon dissolution of a marriage, the family court’s obligation is to consider all factors that bear on the equities of the division[.]”); see also 20 Am.

¶7 While a court may sometimes order an unequal distribution of property, ¶ 18 (App. 2010), it cannot be based on reduced spousal maintenance, ("[P]roperty division and spousal maintenance are two separate and distinct considerations at dissolution.").

6 OLSON v. OLSON, JR. Decision of the Court ¶16 Finally, in arguing the superior court should not have accounted for Wife’s equitable claim, Husband cites ¶ 11 (App. 2010).

¶ 14 (App. 2010) ("But a court is not limited to considering these statutory factors; instead, any other factors that bear on the equities of a case may properly be considered.").

¶12 Although the court may order an unequal division of community property under certain circumstances, ¶ 18 (App. 2010), our supreme court has held that “property division and spousal maintenance are two separate and distinct considerations at dissolution,” (-11 (App. 1980))

¶ 5 (App. 1998); ¶ 7 (App. 2010); see Ariz. R. Fam.

¶ 7 (App. 2010) (citing Boncoskey, 216 Ariz. at 451, ¶ 13).

“In most cases, dividing jointly held property substantially equally will be the most equitable unless there exists a sound reason to divide the property otherwise.” ¶ 6