Cited by

On the other hand, if a court finds that waste did not affect the value of the business but did impact other marital assets, the court “may, when apportioning the community property, award money or property sufficient to compensate the other spouse for that waste.” superseded in part by statute on other grounds; ¶ 17 (App. 2014) (“When the court determines one spouse has wasted or dissipated marital assets, it may apportion the community property in a manner designed to compensate the other spou

¶ 26 (App. 2000) (-95 (1995)).

“A debt incurred by a spouse during marriage is presumed to be a community obligation; a party contesting the community nature of a debt bears the burden of overcoming that presumption by clear and convincing evidence.” –92 (App. 1995).

–94 (App. 1995), ¶ 8 (App. 2014); (a party’s concealment of income or assets may be considered when dividing community property).

Cf. Hrudka v. Hrudka , , 92, , 187 (App. 1995) (under doctrine of judicial estoppel, "a party who successfully asserts a particular position in one judicial proceeding will not be allowed to assert an inconsistent position in a subsequent proceeding"), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized in Myrick v. Maloney

§ 25–318(C)), ¶ 8 (App. 2014)).

superseded by statute on other grounds, ¶ 8 (App. 2014).

93 (App. 1995), ¶ 8 (App. 2014).

§ 25–318(C)), ¶ 8 (App. 2014)).

.” -92 (App. 1995), superseded by statute on other grounds, A.R.S.

superseded by statute on other grounds, A.R.S.

§ 25-318(C); (court may award money to one spouse to compensate for other spouse’s dissipation of community assets), ¶ 8 (App. 2014).

¶8 We will uphold the court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous or unsupported by any credible evidence, but we draw our own legal conclusions from the facts found or implied by the family court, ¶ 6 (App. 2002).

and [we] ‘will not disturb [the] trial court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous.’” ¶ 9 (App. 2012) ( ).

If the family court finds waste, it “may, when apportioning the community property, award money or property sufficient to compensate the other spouse for that waste.”

§ 25-318(C)), Martin, 156 Ariz. at 458, ¶ 8 (App. 2014)).

-92, -87 (App. 1995); see also A.R.S.

that, in determining whether an attorney–client relationship has been established, the relevant considerations are the nature of the services rendered, the circumstances under which the would-be client disclosed confidential information, the would-be client’s belief he was consulting an attorney in that capacity, and his “manifested intention to seek professional legal advice.” superseded in part on other grounds by statute, A.R.S.

Co., and “will not disturb a trial court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous,” superseded by statute 1 After a December 2013 hearing, $35,534.97 remained in escrow.

v. Ford, ¶ 6, -95, -90 (App. 1995) (“The decision whether to award attorneys’ fees lies within the trial court’s sound discretion.”).