Cited by

¶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).

jointly titled marital property only for the purpose of reimbursing each spouse for their respective financial contributions to the purchase of the property”); ¶ 15 (App. 2010) (“[A] court may not order a substantially unequal division of [jointly held] property solely to reimburse the purchasing spouse.”).

represent[s] a rare exception.” ¶ 35 (App. 2010).

In dividing the property upon dissolution, the court “should take into consideration the overall marital estate.” ¶ 24 (App. 2010).

¶17 Though the superior court cited –38, ¶¶ 24–29 (App. 2010), which held unequal division of property was appropriate because the parties incurred substantial community debt to benefit one spouse’s separate property, that case is irrelevant here.

“Thus, in most cases, dividing jointly held property equally will 3 VALASEKOVA v. FEDOR Decision of the Court be the most equitable.” ¶ 13 (App. 2010).

¶9 Against that backdrop, Arizona courts have upheld unequal distributions when the marriage in question lasted two weeks, Toth, 190 Ariz. at 221, and when one spouse drained the community to benefit her separate property, ¶¶ 28–29 (App. 2010).

¶ 15 (App. 2010) (“When real property is held as separate property by one spouse but title is subsequently taken in the name of both spouses, a presumption exists that the contributing spouses intended to make a gift[.]”).

“[A]ll debt incurred by either spouse during marriage is presumed a community obligation.” ¶ 12 (App. 2010) (citation omitted).

¶ 11 (App. 2013); ¶ 14 (App. 2010); ¶ 9 (App. 2007).

¶13 “The touchstone of determining what is ‘equitable’ is a ‘concept of fairness dependent upon the facts of particular cases.’” ¶ 18 (App. 2010) ().

§ 25-211(A); ¶ 12 (App. 2010); –98, ¶ 6 (App. 2005); see also A.R.S.

¶9 A debt incurred by either spouse during the marriage is presumed to be a community obligation, and the party challenging the community nature of a debt “bears the burden of overcoming that presumption by clear and convincing evidence.” Hrudka, 186 Ariz. at 91– 92; ¶ 12 (App. 2010).

“Although the family court must divide [the] community and jointly held property equitably upon dissolution of the marriage, a substantially equal division is not required if a sound reason exists to divide the property otherwise.” ¶ 18 (App. 2010).

¶ 14 (App. 2010); ¶ 22 (App. 2015).

§ 25-318; –35, ¶ 12 (App. 2010).