DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Cummings v. Cummings, 897 P.2d 685.

89 citing documents.

  • Hanson v. Bindl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Hanson v. Bindl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    G]ross income for child support purposes is not determined by the gross income shown on the parties’ income tax returns, but rather on the actual money or cash- 3 HANSON v. BINDL Decision of the Court like benefits received by the household which is available for expenditures.”
  • Ward v. Ward Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Ward v. Ward Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Quijada v. Quijada 437 P.3d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Quijada v. Quijada 437 P.3d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    (declining to award attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party where the parties had equal financial resources and the non-prevailing party presented a novel legal question).
  • Jares v. Hartman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Jares v. Hartman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    (“An award of child support is left to the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.”).
  • Noorda v. Rasor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Noorda v. Rasor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    § 25-320.D, the Arizona Supreme Court promulgated the Arizona Child Support Guidelines (Guidelines) to establish “a standard of support for children consistent with their needs and the ability of parents to pay, and to make child support awards consistent for persons in similar circumstances.”
  • In Re the Marriage of Allen 386 P.3d 1287 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
  • In Re the Marriage of Allen 386 P.3d 1287 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
    6 IN RE MARRIAGE OF ALLEN Opinion of the Court orders consistent for persons in similar circumstances.” § 25-320 app. § 1(A), (B)
  • Sherman v. Sherman 384 P.3d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Sherman v. Sherman 384 P.3d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶ 10 The overall purpose of the Guidelines is to establish “a standard of support for children consistent with their needs and the ability of parents to pay, and to make child support awards consistent for persons in similar circumstances.”
  • Smith v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Smith v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    4 SMITH v. SMITH Decision of the Court awards consistent for persons in similar circumstances.” Guidelines § 1.
  • Curto v. Curto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Curto v. Curto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    ¶9 This court has explained that gross income for child support purposes is “the actual money or cash-like benefits received by the household which is available for expenditures.” (emphasis added).
  • McCammon v. Olson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • McCammon v. Olson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Milinovich v. Womack 343 P.3d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Milinovich v. Womack 343 P.3d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Section 25-320 “does not specify or limit the items that the court may consider in determining a parent’s ‘financial resources.’”
  • Lynch v. Brakebill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Lynch v. Brakebill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Manola v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Manola v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Hanson v. Whetten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Hanson v. Whetten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    “An award of child support is left to the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.”
  • Mejia v. Mejia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Mejia v. Mejia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Strait v. Strait 224 P.3d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • Strait v. Strait 224 P.3d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    5 ¶8 Generally, a court may order reasonable and necessary child support based upon the parents’ financial resources, and may “consider all aspects of a parent’s income” to ensure the award is just and “based on the total financial resources of the parents.”
  • Engel v. Landman 212 P.3d 842 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Engel v. Landman 212 P.3d 842 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    The overarching purpose of the Guidelines is to establish “a standard of support for children consistent with their needs and the ability of parents to pay, and to make child support awards consistent for persons in similar circumstances.” , (citing Guidelines § 1 (1992)); see also Little, 193 Ariz. at 520, ¶ 4 , 975 P.2d at 110 .
  • Hamblen v. Hamblen 54 P.3d 371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • Little v. Little 969 P.2d 188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • Little v. Little 969 P.2d 188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • 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
    “As with the original determination of a child support award, the decision whether changed circumstances exist to warrant modification of an award is within the sound discretion of the trial court.”