Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Wick v. Wick, 489 P.2d 19.

58 citing documents.

Dyrek v. Dyrek Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Dyrek v. Dyrek Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
W]e determine that whether a separation agreement has merged is of no consequence in determining that the court can reopen its determination that a separation agreement is [or is not] unfair.” (citation modified)); (holding that in the absence of fraud or undue influence, parties to divorce are bound by their own agreements); (explaining that a property settlement agreement is valid if it is free from fraud, coercion, or undue influence, the 2 In the appellate briefing, neither party has provide
Smith v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Smith v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Labarge v. Abdullahi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Labarge v. Abdullahi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
( (holding that the court has an obligation to fairly and equitably allocate community property and is “not foreclosed from doing so by the parties’ separation and property settlement agreement”)).
Oberg v. Oberg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Oberg v. Oberg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
To achieve a fair and equitable distribution of community property—even if the parties have a post-nuptial agreement— the superior court thus must consider all evidence, including “the relation of the parties at the time of trial, their ages, financial conditions, opportunities, and the contributions of each to the joint estate.”
Barnett v. Barnett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Barnett v. Barnett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
that the separation agreement is unfair”); (explaining a court is “duty-bound” to distribute community property in a fair manner, even if doing so is contrary to the terms of the parties’ agreement).
Oberg v. Oberg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Oberg v. Oberg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Dole v. Dole Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Dole v. Dole Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
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
¶10 When spouses settle their property rights by agreement, “if the settlement is fair and equitable, free from fraud and undue influence, the court normally will approve it.” ().
Buckholtz v. Buckholtz 435 P.3d 1032 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Buckholtz v. Buckholtz 435 P.3d 1032 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶22 However, when entering into a separation agreement, as a "built-in safeguard[ ]," In re Harber's Estate , , 88, , 16 (1969), parties must act with "full knowledge of the property involved and [their] rights therein," Wick v. Wick , , 384, , 21 (1971).
Heard-Vaughn v. Vaughn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Heard-Vaughn v. Vaughn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
McClendon v. McClendon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
McClendon v. McClendon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Nia v. Nia 396 P.3d 1099 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Nia v. Nia 396 P.3d 1099 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
§ 25-503(E) (the court may order modification effective on a different date for good cause shown); , (action for divorce and related actions such as determination of child support are “generally considered equitable actions and are, therefore, conducted under the rules of equity”).
Backus v. Backus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Backus v. Backus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Valer C. Austin v. Josiah T. Austin 348 P.3d 897 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Valer C. Austin v. Josiah T. Austin 348 P.3d 897 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
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
“[Distribution of marital property is left to the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous.” , ( , , ).
Marriage of Boncoskey v. Boncoskey 167 P.3d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Marriage of Boncoskey v. Boncoskey 167 P.3d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
8 ¶ 26 Here, however, the superior court did not conduct a hearing or otherwise receive *454 evidence that would allow it to alter the settlement agreement; in addition, it made none of the required statutory findings to
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
at 448 , 671 P.2d at 426; , , In re Estate of Henry, 6 Ariz.App.
Sharp v. Sharp 877 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Sharp v. Sharp 877 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
(“A.R.S.”) § 25-317(A); , In re Estate of Henry, 6 Ariz.App.
Cooper v. Cooper 808 P.2d 1234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Cooper v. Cooper 808 P.2d 1234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Nelson v. Nelson 791 P.2d 661 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Nelson v. Nelson 791 P.2d 661 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Dopadre v. Dopadre 749 P.2d 939 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Dopadre v. Dopadre 749 P.2d 939 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Mitchell v. Mitchell 732 P.2d 208 Ariz. 1987
Mitchell v. Mitchell 732 P.2d 208 Ariz. 1987
Stokes v. Stokes 694 P.2d 1204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Stokes v. Stokes 694 P.2d 1204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Keller v. Keller 671 P.2d 425 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Keller v. Keller 671 P.2d 425 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Baum v. Baum 584 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Baum v. Baum 584 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978