Cited by

(“[T]ransmutation of separate property to community property [through commingling] occurs only when the identity of the property as separate or community is lost.”); see also O’Hair v. O’Hair, (When a spouse deposits separate funds into a joint bank account, the marital relationship alone does not presume a gift of those funds to the community.).

¶ 10 (App. 2017); see also O’Hair v. O’Hair, -40 (1973).

See O’Hair v. O’Hair, –40 (1973) (a gift requires donative intent by donor, and delivery to and acceptance by the donee); (less evidence is required to show a gift between a parent and child).

Co., -32 (1986) (applying heightened standard of proof to punitive damages claims); O’Hair v. O’Hair, (requiring clear and convincing proof to establish donative intent for a gift).

O’Hair v. O’Hair, –42 (1973).

7 BARBARA SOWARDS V. TOMMY SOWARDS Opinion of the Court O’Hair v. O’Hair, (explaining the “intention of the depositor” is controlling when determining whether funds are sole and separate property of a particular spouse); (accord); (to same effect).

Thus, the court’s findings are sufficient for us “to determine that the court considered the child’s best interests.” See Diezsi, 201 Ariz. at 526, ¶ 5; see also O’Hair v. O’Hair, (The appellate inquiry is “whether the trial court had before it evidence which might reasonably support its action viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the findings.”).

However, “[n]o principles are better settled in Arizona than, first, that the duty of a reviewing court begins and ends with the inquiry whether the trial court had before it evidence which might reasonably support its action viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the findings, and, second, that the reviewing court will not weigh conflicting evidence on appeal.” O’Hair v. O’Hair, (citations omitted).

-42 (1973) ("Ordinarily, an inferior tribunal loses all jurisdiction in each and every matter connected with a case after an appeal has been perfected, except those matters in furtherance of the appeal.").

(quoting Rasmussen v. Oshkosh Sav.

¶ 13 (App. 1998); see also O’Hair v. O’Hair, 5 SCHICKNER v. SCHICKNER Decision of the Court (stating that the reviewing court will not re-weigh evidence on appeal).

See, e.g., O’Hair v. O’Hair, (“[T]he duty of a reviewing court begins and ends with the inquiry whether the trial court had before it evidence which might reasonably support its action viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the findings.”).

(“[T]he duty of a reviewing court begins and ends with the inquiry whether the trial court had before it evidence which might reasonably support its action viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the findings .

O’Hair v. O’Hair, , , where the court discusses the differences in the principles relating to presumptions surrounding joint tenancies in real property as contrasted to joint tenancies in bank accounts.

465 , the trial court is vested with continuing powers of jurisdiction in certain domestic relations cases by statute, O’Hair v. O’Hair, , .(1973).

However, relying upon O’Hair v. O’Hair, , the court of appeals found that the joint accounts were the separate property of appellant wife.