Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Burnette v. Bender, 908 P.2d 1086.

48 citing documents.

In Re the Support of V.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
Explained In Re the Support of V.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
In Myrick, on which Leal relies, had been superseded by the current version of § 25-324(A), which—since its amendment in 1996—has included “the reasonableness of the parties’ positions as a second factor to consider when determining whether to award fees.”
Goodhope v. Goodhope Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Goodhope v. Goodhope Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 8 (App. 2014) (noting statute amended in 1996 to add reasonableness factor).
Peralta v. Murray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Peralta v. Murray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Morrison v. Morrison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Morrison v. Morrison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-05 (App. 1995), ¶ 8 (App. 2014).
Yacullo v. Cunniffe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Yacullo v. Cunniffe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Thompson v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Thompson v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
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
¶ 15 , *618 (concluding that sale of farmland was not gross income for purposes of calculating child support because land was exchanged for other like-kind property); , (concluding that capital gain from sale of commercial fishing boat was not gross income for purposes of calculating child support; only the interest produced from capital gain was in-cludable as gross income).
Lynch v. Brakebill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Lynch v. Brakebill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Although we agree with Mother that “[t]he Guidelines do not declare that every capital gain is gross income for child support purposes,” ¶ 8, it is within the 7 LYNCH v. BRAKEBILL Decision of th
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 MYRICK v. MALONEY Opinion of the Court P.2d 717
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
In Re the Marriage of Williams 200 P.3d 1043 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
In Re the Marriage of Williams 200 P.3d 1043 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Marriage of Breitbart-Napp v. Napp 163 P.3d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Marriage of Breitbart-Napp v. Napp 163 P.3d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
(stating that whether a party prevails is irrelevant to A.R.S.
Jenkins v. Jenkins 156 P.3d 1140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Jenkins v. Jenkins 156 P.3d 1140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
See, , (finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to treat the capital gains from the sale of a father’s commercial fishing boat and license, which were awarded to him in a dissolution decree, as gross income for purposes of modifying child support); see als
Town of Gilbert v. Maricopa County 141 P.3d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Town of Gilbert v. Maricopa County 141 P.3d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous, [however] we [will] draw our own legal conclusions.”
Marriage of Alley v. Stevens 104 P.3d 157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Marriage of Alley v. Stevens 104 P.3d 157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
We “accept the trial court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous.” , , 1989 (App.1995).
Hallmark Industries, L.L.C. v. First Systech International, Inc. 52 P.3d 812 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Hallmark Industries, L.L.C. v. First Systech International, Inc. 52 P.3d 812 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Marriage of McNutt v. McNutt 49 P.3d 300 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Marriage of McNutt v. McNutt 49 P.3d 300 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
We “accept the trial court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous,” but “draw our own legal conclusions from facts found or implied in the judgment.”
In Re Marriage of Robinson and Thiel 35 P.3d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
In Re Marriage of Robinson and Thiel 35 P.3d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
(interpretation of Guidelines and whether pretax dollars are included in gross income reviewed de novo); , (issue of whether capital gains is included in gross income when calculating child support is question of law).
Mead v. Holzmann 8 P.3d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Mead v. Holzmann 8 P.3d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
(whether capital gains must be included in gross income under section 4(a) of the Guidelines presents a question of law to be reviewed de novo).
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 Little v. Little 975 P.2d 108 Ariz. 1999
Marriage of Little v. Little 975 P.2d 108 Ariz. 1999
v. McEvoy, , (incarceration); , (sale of business); , (retirement); , (layoff); Platt v. Platt, 17 Ariz.App.
Marriage of Roden v. Roden 949 P.2d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Marriage of Roden v. Roden 949 P.2d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
The court is to consider “the financial resources of both parties,” , and in doing so must consider both the claimant’s need and the other spouse’s capacity to bear the burden.
Marriage of Muchesko v. Muchesko 955 P.2d 21 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Followed 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
Nevertheless, the “Guidelines do not replace the exercise of trial court discretion; they focus it.”