Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Becchelli v. Becchelli, 508 P.2d 59.

64 citing documents.

Pillsbury v. Butler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Pillsbury v. Butler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
superseded by statute on other grounds, A.R.S.
Bobrow v. Bobrow 391 P.3d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Bobrow v. Bobrow 391 P.3d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
superseded on other grounds by statute, A.R.S.
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
4 See, e.g., Toth, 190 Ariz. at 220-21 , 946 P.2d at 902 -03 ( , , , ).
Toth v. Toth 946 P.2d 900 Ariz. 1997
Toth v. Toth 946 P.2d 900 Ariz. 1997
Gorham v. Gorham 830 P.2d 881 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Gorham v. Gorham 830 P.2d 881 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Valladee v. Valladee 718 P.2d 206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Valladee v. Valladee 718 P.2d 206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Carroll v. Lee 712 P.2d 923 Ariz. 1986
Carroll v. Lee 712 P.2d 923 Ariz. 1986
We believe the court of appeals construed the holding in Cook too narrowly and -
Carroll v. Lee 712 P.2d 934 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Carroll v. Lee 712 P.2d 934 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Appellee has repeatedly argued that the deeds at issue “speak for themselves.” , relied upon by appellant.
Haynes v. Haynes 713 P.2d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Haynes v. Haynes 713 P.2d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
the Arizona Supreme Court held that where one spouse uses separate funds to purchase real property and places title to that property in joint ownership with the other spouse, it is presumed that the conveyance constitutes a gift to the marital community.
In Re Marriage of Berger 680 P.2d 1217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
In Re Marriage of Berger 680 P.2d 1217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
the husband is entitled to a one-half interest in the lot.
Battiste v. Battiste 662 P.2d 145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Battiste v. Battiste 662 P.2d 145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Appellant argues that the presumption of a gift operated only in favor of the wife at the time this deed was given (1962) , that the presumption of a gift is premised upon the husband’s duty to provide for his wife.
Stevenson v. Stevenson 643 P.2d 1014 Ariz. 1982
Stevenson v. Stevenson 643 P.2d 1014 Ariz. 1982
Sloane v. Sloane 646 P.2d 299 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Sloane v. Sloane 646 P.2d 299 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Ivancovich v. Ivancovich, 24 Ariz.App.
Jordan v. Jordan 643 P.2d 1008 Ariz. 1982
Jordan v. Jordan 643 P.2d 1008 Ariz. 1982
Cooper v. Cooper 635 P.2d 850 Ariz. 1981
Cooper v. Cooper 635 P.2d 850 Ariz. 1981
separate funds, we have held that “where title to real property is taken in the names of both husband and wife, even though the source of funds for the purchase of the property is separate property of one spouse, a presumption arises that the parties intended to own the property as community property.” Sommerfield, supra, 121 Ariz. at 577-78 , 592 P.2d at 773-774
Wayt v. Wayt 600 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1979
Wayt v. Wayt 600 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1979
Gardner v. Gardner 596 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Gardner v. Gardner 596 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Sommerfield v. Sommerfield 592 P.2d 771 Ariz. 1979
Sommerfield v. Sommerfield 592 P.2d 771 Ariz. 1979
Dennis Development Co. v. Department of Revenue 595 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Dennis Development Co. v. Department of Revenue 595 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
471 , overruled, , argues that where the legislature enacts an amendment to a statute it thereby indicates an intention to change the law by either creating or withdrawing legal rights.
Grant v. Grant 581 P.2d 704 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Grant v. Grant 581 P.2d 704 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
and Batesole v. Batesole, 24 Ariz.App.
Jankowski v. Jankowski 561 P.2d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Jankowski v. Jankowski 561 P.2d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Noble v. Noble 546 P.2d 358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Noble v. Noble 546 P.2d 358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Nesmith v. Nesmith 540 P.2d 1229 Ariz. 1975
Nesmith v. Nesmith 540 P.2d 1229 Ariz. 1975
On 20 July 1973 the Court of Appeals, Division One
Ivancovich v. Ivancovich 540 P.2d 718 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Ivancovich v. Ivancovich 540 P.2d 718 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Kelly v. Kelly 540 P.2d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Kelly v. Kelly 540 P.2d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975