DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Rainwater v. Rainwater, 869 P.2d 176.

85 citing documents.

  • Butler v. Butler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    At the same time, the court should aim “to achieve independence for both parties and to require an effort toward independence by the party requesting maintenance.” (“[M]aintenance orders, whenever possible, should promote a transition toward financial independence.”).
  • Downum v. Downum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Downum v. Downum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Although a lifetime award of spousal maintenance may be appropriate in some circumstances, see, ¶ 12 (App. 2007), the superior court has substantial discretion in determining the duration of spousal maintenance
  • Cleary v. Cordero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Cleary v. Cordero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Arora v. Arora Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Arora v. Arora Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Marriage of Ames v. Ames 370 P.3d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Marriage of Ames v. Ames 370 P.3d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    (explaining the purpose of spousal maintenance “is to achieve independence for both parties and to require an effort toward independence by the party requesting maintenance”); -04 (App. 1993) (recognizing that public policy favors limiting the duration of spousal maintenance to encourage a “transition toward independence”).
  • Cordova v. Cordova Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Cordova v. Cordova Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    In considering these factors, the court should balance Arizona’s public policy of promoting the spouse’s diligent effort to become self-sustaining with “some realistic appraisal of the probabilities that the receiving spouse will in fact subsequently be able to support herself in some reasonable approximation of the standard of living established during the marriage.” (citations and internal quotations omitted).
  • Vogue v. Maleknia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Vogue v. Maleknia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Helland v. Helland 337 P.3d 562 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Helland v. Helland 337 P.3d 562 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    An order for payment of spousal maintenance should promote a transition to financial independence for the receiving spouse while allowing a “reasonable approximation of the standard of living established during the marriage.” (internal citation omitted).
  • Robinson v. Hutchins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Robinson v. Hutchins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Gazeley v. Larsen-Gazeley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Gazeley v. Larsen-Gazeley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    To the contrary, and as we have said on another occasion, “divorce often requires a lesser standard of living for both parties.”
  • Cohen v. Cohen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Cohen v. Cohen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    (holding that the party of lesser earning capacity will not necessarily receive spousal support to maintain the standard of living achieved during the marriage).
  • Boyle v. Boyle 290 P.3d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Boyle v. Boyle 290 P.3d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    Husband does rely on one decision issued after the 1987 amendments to § 25-319
  • Marriage of MacMillan v. Schwartz 250 P.3d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • Marriage of MacMillan v. Schwartz 250 P.3d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • Cullum v. Cullum 160 P.3d 231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • Cullum v. Cullum 160 P.3d 231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • In Re the Marriage of Zale 972 P.2d 230 Ariz. 1999
  • In Re the Marriage of Zale 972 P.2d 230 Ariz. 1999
    The court added that, given the decision that spousal maintenance ended after 36 months, it was not error for the trial court to have placed on Mrs. Zale the burden of proving a substantial and continuing change of circumstances
  • Marriage of Gutierrez v. Gutierrez 972 P.2d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • Marriage of Gutierrez v. Gutierrez 972 P.2d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • Kelsey v. Kelsey 918 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • Kelsey v. Kelsey 918 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • Hughes v. Hughes 869 P.2d 198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • Hughes v. Hughes 869 P.2d 198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    we recently rejected the argument that indefinite maintenance can only be awarded when the receiving spouse is “permanently unable to be self-sustaining.” Id.