Cited by

¶ 25 (App. 2010) (declining to award costs to either party because both parties prevailed in part).

“We will uphold the court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous or unsupported by any credible evidence.” ¶ 11 (App. 2010).

¶ 11 (App. 2010); Ariz. R. Fam.

¶ 11 (App. 2010); see also Thomas, 142 Ariz. at 390.2 ¶10 The superior court found Wife eligible because she lacks sufficient property to provide for her reasonable needs under A.R.S.

“We will uphold 5 BARNUM v. BARNUM Decision of the Court the court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous or unsupported by any credible evidence.” ¶ 11 (App. 2010).

“We will uphold 6 HOWARD v. HOWARD Decision of the Court the court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous or unsupported by any credible evidence.” ¶ 11 (App. 2010).

“The existence and the value of an equitable lien present mixed questions of fact and law.” ¶ 11 (App. 2010).

¶11 “The existence and the value of an equitable lien present mixed questions of fact and law.” ¶ 11 (App. 2010).

¶ 7 (2022); ¶ 11 (App. 2010).

Holdings, LLC v. Rancho Del Mar Apartments Ltd. P’ship, -68, ¶¶ 20-21 (App. 2011) (rejecting affidavits offered to show that easement granted for “pedestrian and passenger” vehicles was intended for emergency vehicles only because “the contract language [was] not reasonably susceptible to the interpretation” set forth in the affidavits) (cleaned up); ¶¶ 21-22 (App. 2010) (holding that, where the deed’s language was “unambiguous in that [the grantors] conveyed the property interest to [their son]

To prove the amount of an equitable lien, however, the movant must prove “the amount of the community contribution and a division of equity reflecting the increase in value due to the community contribution consistent with a market rate of return on that contribution.” Saba, 516 P.3d at 896, ¶ 16; ¶ 14 (App. 2010) (when imposing an equitable lien, the superior court “determine[s] the value of the property on the date of trial to compute the value of the community lien”).

-82, ¶¶ 12-13 (App. 2010).

The determination of the amount of the community interest in separate property resulting in an equitable lien is a mixed question of fact and law, ¶ 11 (App. 2010), so we defer to the trial court’s factual findings but review legal conclusions de novo, see Helvetica Servicing, ¶ 10 (2020).

“The existence and the value of an equitable lien present mixed questions 5 GONZALEZ v. GONZALEZ Decision of the Court of fact and law.” ¶ 11 (App. 2010).

“The existence and the value of an equitable lien present mixed questions of fact and law.” ¶ 11 (App. 2010).

The community is also entitled to share in the increase of the property’s value during the marriage, “even if the increased value was due only to general market conditions.” ¶ 13 (App. 2010) ( 7 IMATDINOV v. IMATDINOV Decision of the Court (1982) and Drahos, 149 Ariz. at 250).