Cited by

The superior court “abuses its discretion when it misapplies the law or predicates its decision on incorrect legal principles.” ¶ 13 (App. 2019) (cleaned up).

Thus, the debt is presumptively a community obligation, ¶ 29 (App. 2019) (“Generally, all liability incurred by either spouse during a marriage is presumed to be a community obligation.”), which “may be overcome by clear and convincing evidence that the debt is 5 EMEOFA v. EMEOFA

¶9 “[W]hen dividing the community, the court is to consider all community assets and debts in making an equitable property distribution.” see generally § 25-318(A), (B).

¶ 13 (App. 2019); ¶ 10 (N.M.

Hammett v, Hammett, ¶ 29 (App. 2019).

2 DICKEY v. DICKEY Decision of the Court DISCUSSION ¶4 Absent an abuse of discretion, this court will not disturb the superior court’s rulings on division of property, ¶ 13 (App. 2019), spousal maintenance, ¶ 14 (App. 1998), or determinations of violations of preliminary injunctions

For example, ¶ 26 (App. 2019), we remanded for the court to consider post-petition payments “to maintain community assets as it would in any other proceeding dividing community property.” (Emphasis added) (citing Bobrow, 241 Ariz. at 596, ¶ 19).

A court abuses its discretion when: (1) the record is devoid of competent evidence to support its decision, ¶ 19 (App. 2009), or (2) “it misapplies the law or predicates its decision on incorrect legal principles.” ¶ 13 (App. 2019) (cleaned up).

§ 25-211(A); ¶ 14 (App. 2019).

¶ 29 (App. 2019) ( (“[W]e [do not] see any reason why the [community obligation] presumption should be negated by the fact that the husband used his separate property to secure the community loans.”)

¶ 13 (App. 2019); ¶ 5 (App. 2018); ¶ 14 (App. 1998) (spousal 1Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated.

¶ 6 (App. 2019); ¶ 13 (App. 2019).

“A trial court abuses its discretion when it misapplies the law or predicates its decision on incorrect legal principles.” ¶ 13 (App. 2019) ( ¶ 12 (App. 2004)).

¶12 Because the superior court applied an incorrect legal standard in determining whether the Agreement was enforceable, we vacate the ruling that the Agreement was not enforceable and remand for reconsideration.3 ¶ 13 (App. 2019) (“A trial court abuses its discretion when it misapplies the law or predicates its decision on incorrect legal principles.”( ¶ 12 (App. 2004))).

(“[W]e [do not] see any reason why the [community obligation] presumption should be negated by the fact that the husband used his separate property to secure the community loans.”); ¶ 29 (App. 2019).