Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Buckholtz v. Buckholtz, 435 P.3d 1032.
- Boyle v. Malta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-
Boyle v. Malta
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
In re Harber’s Estate, (recognizing the validity of a property settlement agreement made during the marriage and not in anticipation of divorce or separation); ¶¶ 17–18 (App. 2019).
- Nayeri v. Mohave County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
-
Nayeri v. Mohave County
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(addressing an issue likely to arise on remand); ¶ 17 (App. 2019) (same).
- Hammett v. Hammett 453 P.3d 1145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
-
Hammett v. Hammett
453 P.3d 1145
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Therefore, the court could not correctly find that the parties acted with full knowledge of their property rights when they entered the agreement; nor could it determine whether the agreement was “fair and equitable.” –33, ¶ 24 (App. 2019) (the court must determine whether a party acted with full knowledge of his separate property rights when he entered into an “unfair” agreement).
- Potter v. Potter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
-
Potter v. Potter
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 17 (App. 2019) (court may address other arguments raised by a party if the issues may occur on remand).