Cited by

-97, ¶¶ 11, 20 (App. 2017).

–97, ¶¶ 11, 20 (App. 2017) (deferring to the court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous or unsupported by substantial evidence).

¶ 19 (App. 2017) (“A spouse who voluntarily services community debt and maintains community assets with separate property should not be penalized .

¶ 28 (App. 2017) (holding the pretrial statement controls the course of the litigation and is “intended to avoid unfair surprise at trial”).

The pretrial statement controls the course of the litigation and is “intended to avoid unfair surprise at trial.” ¶ 28 (App. 2017) (citations omitted).

for the proposition that Wife was obligated to prove the payments for community expenses were meant to be a gift and, absent that proof, he was entitled to reimbursement for his payments.

¶ 19 (App. 2017) (post-petition maintenance of 9 Hammett v. Hammett Opinion of the Court community assets from separate funds to be accounted for in “equitable property distribution”).

–99, ¶¶ 30– 31 (App. 2017) (citing Edsall v. Superior Court In & For Pima Cty., –49 (1984)).

See Bobrow v. Bobrow , , 595, ¶ 10, , 649 (App. 2017) (the burden is on the party claiming an action was a gift to establish the claim by clear and convincing proof).

¶ 29 (App. 2017) (party may not present new argument in motion for new trial).

(defendant is bound by his counsel’s tactical or strategic decisions to waive even constitutional rights), ¶ 29 (App. 2017) (a 6 ARPOP 40 provides: (a) A plaintiff may ask for modification of a protective order at any time during the term of the order.

¶ 23 (App. 2017) (applying waiver on appeal based on party’s failure to raise argument in the superior court).

¶41 Husband argues the court erred as matter of law, ¶¶ 15, 19 (App. 2017), in which we held a spouse's post-petition payment of community expenses is not presumed to be a gift of sole funds to the community.

¶ 19 (App. 2017) (noting efforts to service community debt and maintain community assets with post-petition separate property “must be accounted for in an equitable property distribution”).

3 KRENZEN v. KATZ Decision of the Court that results in a decree of dissolution.” ¶ 15 (App. 2017) (citing A.R.S.

¶37 In its final order, the court acknowledged the applicable case law, ¶ 31 (App. 2017), which holds that the court’s consideration and application of § 25-324 controls over a prevailing party clause.

¶ 33, n.12 (App. 2017) (appellate court may take judicial notice of superior court records).

§ 25-211(A)(2), the marital community is deemed to have terminated upon the service of a petition that results in a decree of dissolution.” ¶ 15 (App. 2017).