Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Hrudka v. Hrudka, 919 P.2d 179.

101 citing documents.

Robinson v. Hutchins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
- 92, -87 (App. 1995), superseded in part by statute on other grounds as recognized in Myrick v. Maloney, ___ Ariz. ___
Myrick v. Maloney 333 P.3d 818 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Myrick v. Maloney 333 P.3d 818 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
section 25-324.”), -95, -90 (App. 1995); (“‘Under § 25-324, the court’s sole consideration relates to the parties’ financial resources.’”), 744 4
In Re the Marriage of Thorn 330 P.3d 973 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
In Re the Marriage of Thorn 330 P.3d 973 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Stewart v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Stewart v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
We review the family court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard, but we review the characterization of the note as separate or community property de novo.
Dekker v. Dekker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Dekker v. Dekker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Natale v. Natale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Natale v. Natale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Walsh v. Walsh 286 P.3d 1095 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Walsh v. Walsh 286 P.3d 1095 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
We view the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the decision, , (“Mitchell II”), and “will not disturb [the] trial court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous,”
In Re Marriage of Gibbs 258 P.3d 221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Gibbs v. Gibbs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
In Re Marriage of Gibbs 258 P.3d 221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
(decision on attorney fees “lies within the trial court’s sound discretion, ‘with the focus on the parties’ relative abilities to pay the fees incurred’ ”), -95 , -90 (App. 1995).
Gibbs v. Gibbs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
See Pearson v. Pearson, 190 Ariz. 231, 236, (decision on attorney fees “lies within the trial court‟s sound discretion, „with the focus on the parties‟ relative abilities to pay the fees incurred‟”), -95, -90 (App. 1995).
Valento v. Valento 240 P.3d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Valento v. Valento 240 P.3d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Davies v. Beres 233 P.3d 1139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Davies v. Beres 233 P.3d 1139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Ramsay v. WHEELER-RAMSAY 232 P.3d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Ramsay v. WHEELER-RAMSAY 232 P.3d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
We will not overturn a court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous, , but the family court’s characterization of property is a question of law that we review de novo.
In Re Marriage of Flower 225 P.3d 588 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
In Re Marriage of Flower 225 P.3d 588 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc. 211 P.3d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc. 211 P.3d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
(“We will not disturb a trial court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous.”).
Marriage of Bell-Kilbourn v. Bell-Kilbourn 169 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Marriage of Bell-Kilbourn v. Bell-Kilbourn 169 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Amparano v. Asarco, Inc. 93 P.3d 1086 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Amparano v. Asarco, Inc. 93 P.3d 1086 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
(finding that disqualification would be excessive penalty after parties had actively litigated case for year and half before issue of disqualification was raised); , (disqualification may be avoided if hardship
Cimarron Foothills Community Ass'n v. Kippen 79 P.3d 1214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Cimarron Foothills Community Ass'n v. Kippen 79 P.3d 1214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
In re U.S. Currency in Amount of $26,980.00
Danielson v. Evans 36 P.3d 749 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Danielson v. Evans 36 P.3d 749 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
In Re Marriage of Pownall 5 P.3d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
In Re Marriage of Pownall 5 P.3d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Marriage of Medlin v. Medlin 981 P.2d 1087 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Marriage of Medlin v. Medlin 981 P.2d 1087 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Graville v. Dodge 985 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Graville v. Dodge 985 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Reed v. Mitchell & Timbanard, P.C., , -95 , -90 (App.1995).
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
Toth v. Toth 946 P.2d 900 Ariz. 1997
Marriage of Muchesko v. Muchesko 955 P.2d 21 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Marriage of Muchesko v. Muchesko 955 P.2d 21 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
In Re the Marriage of Pearson v. Pearson 946 P.2d 1291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
In Re the Marriage of Pearson v. Pearson 946 P.2d 1291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Hrudka v. *237 Hrudka, -95 , -190 (App.1995).
American Express Travel Related Services Co. v. Parmeter 925 P.2d 1369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
American Express Travel Related Services Co. v. Parmeter 925 P.2d 1369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Similarly, “[a] debt incurred by a spouse during marriage is presumed to be a community obligation.” , -87 (App.1995).